HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/15/2013 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NDATE: January 15, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 27, 2012 Adjourned Meeting and the December 4 and
December 18, 2012 Regular Meetings.
November 27, 2012
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, November
27, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Horak, Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
City Manager Atteberry announced that the City Council hearing to consider the authorization in
the Midtown Plan of the use of eminent domain by the Urban Renewal Authority has been
postponed from December 4, 2012 to January 15, 2013.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into
executive session to continue the annual performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney
and Municipal Judge and discuss their proposed compensation and benefits as permitted under
Section 2-31(a)(1)a of the City Code. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weikunat.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
195
December 4, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 4,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry recommended postponement of Item No. 20, Public Hearing on Authorizing
the Use of Eminent Domain by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority to January 15, 2013.
Additionally, he recommended the placement of an additional item under Other Business, First
Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of a Property Not Yet Under Full Ownership and Control of the
Applicant or Developer.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the agreement between the Urban Renewal
Authority and the Rocky Mountain Innosphere and opposed the assistance package provided to the
Innosphere.
Bill Mullaney, questioned the reasoning behind a Councilmember leaving the chambers when he
and Stacy Lynne speak.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed her child custody case.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, discussed the City’s triple bottom line policies.
John Fye, 1405 Briarwood Road, read a portion of the book, “The Law.”
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, encouraged increased cardboard
recycling and supported a reduction in supermarket plastic bag use.
196
December 4, 2012
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, discussed Boulder’s “Do the Math” tour and carbon dioxide
emissions and air pollution.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat reviewed Council meeting rules and parliamentary procedures.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 8 and November 13, 2012
Adjourned Meetings and the November 20, 2012 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
Ordinance No. 131, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2012,
reappropriates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that have been returned
to the program for allocation in the fall 2012 Competitive Process.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
The Golf Board currently consists of nine members appointed by the City Council. At the
end of 2012, the terms of three members will expire. Two of those members are eligible for
reappointment but did not reapply for reappointment. One member did apply for
reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes to the size of
the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This opportunity was
presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the Council reduce
the size from nine to seven members. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 20, 2012, amends the City Code to reduce the size of the Board to
seven members.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
The City’s Charter provides that service areas are provided by ordinance upon the
recommendation of the City Manager. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 20, 2012 amends the City Code, per the City Manager’s
recommendation, to create a Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Area,
reflecting changes in roles and reporting relationships.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative
session relating to state traffic laws. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on November 20, 2012, ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code is consistent with state
traffic laws.
197
December 4, 2012
11. Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2012, annex and
zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Kechter Road, approximately 900 feet east of
the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. The proposed zoning for this
annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N). This annexation
is not associated with the proposed Kechter Farm development, which is located southeast
of the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2013 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $693,100, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($177,500 from each City), and interest earnings. This amount for each city is $92,500
greater than the previous year contributions of $85,000. For the City of Fort Collins the
original $85,000 is funded from General Fund ongoing revenue, while the one-time increase
of $92,500 will be funded from General Fund reserves.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2012, authorizes
the appropriation of the City of Fort Collins portion of the Airport’s annual operating budget
in the amount of $346,550. This is 50% of the entire Airport annual operating budget of
$693,100.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $1,100,000
for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland;
and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2013 Airport capital funds, totaling $2,200,000,
will be used to complete 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.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the
University Station at the request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative
fencing, enhanced landscaped plaza, walkway lighting, spare conduit installation, and
upsizing of the storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff. These items are
not eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the
MAX BRT Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU. This ordinance appropriates the
198
December 4, 2012
identified funds of $806,380 to construct the improvements concurrently with the BRT
project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
The City of Fort Collins 2013 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee
compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City
positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The
2013 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector
markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational
groups. Ranges for non-benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is
calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater
Management Program identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the
requirements. This inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins Design Criteria Manual allowing
emergency work to be exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) requirements of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities,
the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from
the requirements. The proposed amendment will clarify that emergency work will be
exempt only from advance submittal requirements, but not requirements for measures to
prevent and control erosion.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct
the List of Properties Contained in Such Ordinance That Are Subject to the Special Fee
Imposed by Such Ordinance.
This Ordinance amends Ordinance No. 117, 2012, adopted on Second Reading on November
6, 2012, that established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property within close
proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State
Highway 392. The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel of property in Zone A that is
actually located within the Town of Windsor. This property should not have been shown as
being subject to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance.
This Ordinance removes that parcel of property and slightly adjusts the area of the property
owned by Terry and Mary Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property size.
17. Resolution 2012-113 Adopting the 2012 Update to the Transportation Capital Improvement
Plan, Appendix F of the City of Fort Collins 2011 Transportation Master Plan.
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an inventory of all multi-modal
transportation needs throughout the City and is an appendix to Transportation Master Plan
(TMP). The focus of the 2012 update was to ensure that the CIP is accurate, up-to-date, and
more user-friendly. The update also supports the action steps specified in the 2011
199
December 4, 2012
TMP/CIP. This is an administrative update to the CIP. Adoption of a revised version
requires City Council approval because the CIP is an appendix to the Transportation Master
Plan.
18. Resolution 2012-114 Adopting the 2012 Update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort
Collins.
This is the 2012 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Three-Mile
Plan). The Three-Mile Plan is a State-required long-range “plan” that outlines the existing
plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City Council
which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of infrastructure and
land uses. In addition, there are some plans and policies that are listed in the Three-Mile
Plan that were adopted by Larimer County, Colorado State University or adjoining
municipalities, as these are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan. There
are very few changes from the 2011update.
19. Resolution 2012-115 Adopting the Annual Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City
of Fort Collins’ Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2013 for
Operations and Maintenance.
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the
Poudre Fire Authority.
20. Postponement of the Public Hearing on Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain by the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority to January 15, 2013.
Notice was previously mailed to property owners in the Midtown Urban Renewal Area of
a City Council hearing that had been planned for Tuesday, December 4th. The hearing was
for consideration of the authorization in the Midtown Plan of the use of eminent domain by
the Urban Renewal Authority. Because the Council will be conducting a hearing on January
15th regarding the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and other related issues, the hearing that
had been planned for December 4th will be postponed and will instead take place as part of
the January 15th hearing. Notice of the January hearing will be published and mailed within
the next couple of weeks.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
200
December 4, 2012
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
11. Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct
the List of Properties Contained in Such Ordinance That Are Subject to the Special Fee
Imposed by Such Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel reported several Councilmember attended a meeting regarding the homeless
population in Fort Collins. He stated the idea of opening City buildings as night-time shelters has
been discussed.
Councilmember Poppaw noted there are barriers to entry at some emergency shelters.
Mayor Weitkunat noted any shelter decisions will be formally placed on a Council agenda.
201
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak reported on the National League of Cities annual meeting and discussed his
committee meeting relating to the regulation of hydraulic fracking and the protection of municipal
water supplies.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson reported on the annual legislative breakfast attended by Councilmembers.
Items Relating to Medical Marijuana, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2012, Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 15, Article
XVI of the City Code in Accordance with a Voter Approved Citizen-Initiated Ordinance
Governing the Licensing, Number, Location and Operation of Medical Marijuana
Businesses.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.143, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code in Accordance with
a Voter Approved, Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Governing the Licensing, Number, Location
and Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses.
These ordinances are being presented to the City Council as a result of the passage of a citizen-
initiated measure, Measure 301, on November 6, 2012. The stated purpose of Measure 301 is to
strictly regulate, control, and permit a limited number of state-authorized medical marijuana
businesses within the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 142, 2012, repeals the sections of Chapter 15 of the City Code that were enacted to
ban such businesses and replaces those sections with Measure 301.
Ordinance No. 143, 2012, addresses changes specific to the Land Use Code (LUC) that are also
necessary to implement Measure 301. On February 21, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 010, 2012, which deleted all references in the Land Use Code (LUC) to medical marijuana
businesses, disallowing any medical marijuana businesses in any zone district within the city limits.
In order to fully implement Measure 301, it is necessary to put the previous references to such
businesses back into the Land Use Code, thereby once again allowing those businesses in certain
zone districts.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2012, a citizen-initiated measure, Measure 301, was approved by the voters. It
implements a licensing system for medical marijuana businesses, similar to the businesses that were
in place prior to the ban in 2011. This measure took effect upon certification of the election results
on November 19, 2012. With its passage and certification, it is necessary to amend the City Code
and the LUC to once again allow medical marijuana businesses.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council repeal and reenact Chapter 15, Article XVI of
the City Code, consistent with the wishes of the registered electors. This will remove the provisions
prohibiting medical marijuana businesses and codify the new voter-approved provisions governing
202
December 4, 2012
the licensing, number, location and operation of medical marijuana businesses set forth in Measure
301.
With regard to the Land Use Code amendments, staff is recommending that the previous regulations
governing the zone districts in which medical marijuana businesses were allowed and not allowed
should be reinstated in the same manner as they previously existed in the Code.
Medical marijuana businesses that were allowed in the city prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 010,
2012 earlier this year consisted of “medical marijuana centers” (aka dispensaries),”medical
marijuana-infused products manufacturers”, and “medical marijuana optional premises cultivation
operations”.
Medical marijuana centers were previously allowed in the following zone districts: D, RDR, CC,
CCN, CCR, CG, and CS.
Medical marijuana-infused products manufacturers and medical marijuana optional premises
cultivation operations were allowed in the following zone districts: RDR, CCN, CS, CL (non-
Riverside areas only), and I.
In addition to allowing medical marijuana businesses in the above-referenced zone districts, the
previous regulations prohibited such uses from being conducted as a home occupation, and
prohibited them from being allowed under the ‘addition of permitted use’ process. These
prohibitions are recommended to be put back into the LUC, and are included in the LUC ordinance.
The two ordinances presented bring consistency to both the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code
as the City moves forward in enacting Measure 301.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On December 20, 2012, between First and Second Reading, the Planning and Zoning Board will
consider the proposed Land Use Code Ordinance and will forward a recommendation to City
Council prior to Second Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has not conducted formal public outreach since these changes are the result of an election.”
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, noted these Ordinances are related to the local measure
301, not to the State Amendment 64. Ordinance No. 142, 2012, enacts Measure 301 and removes
the previous ban on medical marijuana businesses in the City Code. Ordinance No. 143, 2012,
amends the Land Use Code and inserts the previous references to medical marijuana businesses.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed education and treatment relating to medical
marijuana and encouraged the enactment of a strict sales tax from which the revenues can be
dedicated to education and treatment.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the term “strictly” regulated. City
Attorney Roy replied the term “strictly” is a matter of perception and judgment. Separation and
203
December 4, 2012
security requirements may be considered strict; however, staff is not at liberty to amend the
provisions of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell discussed the previous regulations and separation requirements and
requested an interpretation of the new separation requirements. Sawyer stated Measure 301 is
stricter regarding distance separation requirements for colleges and universities. The Ordinance is
written with a bias towards previously licensed businesses and includes a cap to the number of
businesses that are allowed in the community, based on the number of registered patients. If all of
the previously existing businesses were to provide complete applications to open on the same
parcels, all of those businesses would be allowed to re-open.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the Ordinance wording regarding plant size. Sawyer replied
the Ordinance does not include previous references to plant size and clones; however, it does include
two ounces of sales per seven days.
Councilmember Troxell noted medical marijuana is still against federal law and asked if that fact
puts City staff and police officers at risk for breaking federal law. City Attorney Roy replied it does
conceivably put staff at risk; however, clarification on that issue is being sought from the U.S.
Attorney’s office.
Councilmember Troxell stated the most recent document from the U.S. Attorney’s office was that
the federal laws are set to be enforced. City Attorney Roy replied there was a reference to state
officials, though none to local officials, in one letter from the U.S. Attorney’s office to an Attorney
General in another state.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 142, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the City’s previous regulations are returning in essentially the same
form as they existed before the ban. Sawyer replied in the affirmative and noted all state regulations
will apply as well.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern about the health and safety of members of the
community and stated he would not support the motion.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this Ordinance repeals and reenacts Chapter 15 of the City Code and exists
because it was voter-approved.
Councilmember Horak noted there have been no moves by the federal government to prosecute
these cases.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
204
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 143, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Regulations, Adopted Option C on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council directed staff to evaluate methods by which the City may regulate oil and gas
exploration and production. Since oil and gas operations are governed primarily by the state and
federal governments, staff will provide an overview of what regulations exist and where the City
may be effective in both filling existing regulatory “gaps” and strengthening existing regulations
in order to better protect the health and safety of residents. Discussion includes development review
criteria, water and air quality, environmental protections, and emergency services. Staff also
presents information on non-regulatory ways to respond to residents’ concerns including options
such as surface-use and operator agreements, legislative advocacy, regional cooperation, and active
participation in related state and federal rulemaking processes.
Staff is providing three options for Council’s consideration:
• Option A: Dual-track development review process
• Option B: Single-track development review process
• Option C: Moratorium
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Existing oil and gas activity in the city:
Oil production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field, located in the northeast portion of the
city. The Fort Collins Field is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and
has been in production since about 1925. In the City limits, the field consists of seven producing
wells and seven injecting wells within the City limits, all of which are managed by one operator.
Four residential subdivisions have developed around the Fort Collins field, with an additional
subdivision planned in the area.
In addition to the Fort Collins field, well development has historically occurred southward along
the I-25 corridor. There are no active wells in this area today. As all wells were subsequently
annexed into City boundaries, there have been no permits issued to date in the City of Fort Collins.
Two recent developments may result in significant changes in oil and gas exploration in Larimer
County. The first is the successful exploration of the Niobrara formation, which lies deep under
much of northeastern Colorado, and the second is the advancing technology of hydraulic fracturing
205
December 4, 2012
to extract the resource from within deeply located shale deposits. This has raised considerable
public concern.
Existing regulations
Because oil and gas exploration and production is regulated by the state in Colorado, local
jurisdictions are limited in their ability to control the location, procedures, and impacts of oil and
gas drilling in and around their boundaries. A combination of the state’s laws and several court
cases have resulted in the preemption of local control over various aspects of oil and gas activities,
and the scope of that preemption is the subject of ongoing litigation..
Accordingly, existing oil and gas regulations in the Land Use Code are limited to a single
paragraph in Section 3.8.14 and reads as follows:
“Any use that is not permitted under the provisions of Article 4, but that must be
allowed because of preemption by a sovereign jurisdiction or because of a court
order, shall be processed as a Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review)
and shall be approved, with or without conditions, as necessary to ensure that such
use complies with all general standards as set forth in Article 3 and zone district
standards as set forth in Article 4 as are or may reasonably be interpreted to be
applicable to such use, provided that such standards are not preempted or ordered
by a court not to be applied.”
This section indicates that all oil and gas operations are subject to a Type 2, or Planning and
Zoning Board review. This paragraph also suggests that oil and gas operations are subject to the
standards set forth in the Land Use Code, to the extent that they are not preempted by the state.
DISCUSSION - Proposed Framework for Oil and Gas Operations:
As discussed above, the City has a shared authority with the state and other agencies for controlling
how oil and gas operations occur both above and below ground. Typically, the City’s Land Use
Code serves as the primary mechanism for land development in the City. However, because of the
shared authority with the state, staff has identified a number of methods to address specific
community concerns and better address oil and gas operations at local levels. Staff recommends
that the City engage at the federal, state and regional levels, as well, to better affect regulations or
ensure compliance with regulations.
Federal
The federal level options are aimed at influencing the Environmental Protection Agency and other
regulatory bodies to gain more stringent oversight of oil and gas operations. The EPA intends to
have a new set of operating criteria for oil and gas in place in 2015 and City of Fort Collins staff
intends to comment on whether those policies are implemented at a statewide or local level.
Significant costs may be incurred by the City if implemented locally rather than utilizing existing
statewide resources.
206
December 4, 2012
In addition to influencing governmental agencies at the federal level, the City can also utilize federal
research, programs, and services to ensure oil and gas operations both within the City’s boundaries
and at a regional level do not degrade quality of life.
State
Colorado permits oil and gas activity through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC). In addition to the COGCC, two other state agencies have a role in oversight of oil and
gas operations – the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and
the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW). CDPHE’s oversight is focused upon the
potential and actual impacts of oil and gas activity on human health, specifically with regards to
air and water quality. The DPW, a sister agency of the COGCC under the Department of Natural
Resources, has oversight of habitat and wildlife protection.
The state-level options include the following opportunities for City involvement:
• Engage in stakeholder processes – As with the federal level engagement opportunities, the
City can participate in stakeholder processes to affect the rules at the state level that affect
oil and gas operations.
• Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates
in the state’s review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil
and gas applications at the state level.
• Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to
have inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations
within city limits.
• Advocating for legislative change – The City can engage in legislative discussions to
influence the state and other municipalities. Fort Collins’ Legislative Policy Agenda calls
for supporting legislation to provide communities with more tools to address the industry
and more power over local land use.
• Designated Outside Activity Areas – This tool allows for an area, e.g., City Park, to receive
the same 350-foot setback that high density areas receive. The City applies for this
designation through the state on areas in the City that meet certain qualifications, e.g., a
certain number of users per day or per year. Longmont has successfully received approval
for two City park complexes.
Regional
Regional solutions include addressing some impacts of oil and gas activity collaboratively with
other local governments. These collaborations include hiring a shared inspector to effectively
balance the ability to inspect local wells with the number of existing wells and anticipated activity.
Staff initiated conversations with several jurisdictions about sharing an inspector.
The regional level also presents a partnership opportunity with other municipalities, counties, and
researchers to address issues that go beyond our city borders, e.g., air quality. Intergovernmental
207
December 4, 2012
agreements to share monitoring resources and equipment for air quality are one tool the City could
explore. From a research perspective, faculty at Colorado State University is examining air
emissions from well sites in Garfield County beginning in spring 2013 through fall 2015. The
results of this study, funded jointly by the County and industry, are anticipated to provide a better
understanding of the toxicity of well emissions. Staff met with the faculty associated with this study,
as well as others at CSU who are examining air emissions and regional impacts from oil and gas
operations, and will utilize the lessons learned from these research efforts to recommend changes
to local regulations.
Local
The local solutions include at least five mechanisms to address oil and gas operations to ensure
community concerns are addressed and residents’ quality of life is protected:
• Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates
in the state’s review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil
and gas applications at the state level.
• Operator Agreements – A negotiated agreement between the City and any operator wishing
to conduct oil and gas operations in the City. The agreement could include additional,
prescriptive requirements such as enhanced baseline and ongoing monitoring.
• Intergovernmental Agreement with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to have
inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within
city limits. It also provides opportunities for partnering with our surrounding municipalities
on a regional basis for inspection authority.
• Surface Use Agreements –A negotiated agreement between the landowner and any operator
wishing to conduct oil and gas operations providing another mechanism to obtain enhanced
conditions.
• Land Use Regulations – A set of regulations and control mechanisms that are protective of
public health and the environment. The Land Use Code amendments before Council include
Option A (a dual-track development review process) and Option B (a single-track
development review process). The regulatory options are described in greater depth below.
Land Use Regulations – Review Processes
Two options are presented related to Land Use Code regulations:
• Option A: Dual-track development review process, which includes both an expedited and
standard review process
• Option B: Single-track development review process – This option combines the prescriptive
criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review process. Under this option,
all development review applications would be processed under a single review track and
required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
208
December 4, 2012
The review processes for the dual-track development review processes are outlined in Table 1 below
(see Table 2 for the single-track review process). The Standard Review process requires the
operator to locate a well and operate in a manner that does not degrade quality of life (e.g.,
adjacent land uses, natural resources, water quality, air quality, visual and scenic resources, etc.).
The Standard Review process also requires operators to attend a neighborhood meeting and a
hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to the Type 2 standards currently
outlined in the Land Use Code. The regulations outlined in the Standard Review process however,
are more goal-based than prescriptive.
Alternatively, the Expedited Review process requires operators (who voluntarily choose this option)
to meet specific, objective criteria prescribed in the review process. By meeting these more
prescriptive standards, staff proposes that public comments only be taken in a written format and
that the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services has the final decision-
making authority.
This dual-track review process is a model utilized by other local governments to address oil and gas
development and has achieved some success in engaging operators in meeting specific objective
criteria.
Table 1: Option A: Dual-track review process, including the standard and expedited review
processes, notice requirements, and decision-making authority.
Element Standard Review Process
(Type 2 Review)
Expedited Review Process
(Basic Development Review)
Regulations Must locate a well and operate
in a manner that does not
degrade quality of life
Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
Notice
Requirement
s
Notification sent when an
application is received, prior to
a neighborhood meeting and
prior to the hearing
Notification sent when an application is
received and if an application is approved
Public
Comments
Written comments can be
provided prior to or at the public
hearing
Residents and affected parties
can testify at the public hearing
Written comments can be provided after the
notification that an application has been
received
Decision-
making
authority
Planning and Zoning Board
approval
Director approval
Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all
operations must be 500’ from an occupied
structure, water well, Natural Area or City
Park and 150’ from any property line
Appeals Decisions are appealable to City
Council
Decisions can be appealed in District Court
209
December 4, 2012
Table 2: Option B: Single-track review process
Element Review Process
Regulations Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
Notice
Requirements
Notification sent when an application is received, prior to a neighborhood
meeting and prior to the hearing
Public
Comments
Written comments can be provided prior to or at the public hearing
Residents and affected parties can testify at the public hearing
Decision-
making
authority
Planning and Zoning Board approval
Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all operations must be 500’ from an
occupied structure, water well, Natural Area or City Park and 150’ from any
property line
Appeals Decisions are appealable to City Council
Land Use Regulations – Proposed Standards
All new oil and gas operations will be subject to the requirements in either the standard review or
expedited review track, (Table 3) unless Option B is adopted by Council and then the standards in
expedited review will prevail.
Common areas for oil and gas operators to address in submittals include air quality, water quality,
and natural resource protection. Within each area the standards differ based upon the review
process. The conditions offered for standard review consist largely of plans and information about
proposals for preventing or mitigating community impacts.
Table 3: This table outlines the standards for air quality, water quality, natural resources
standards, general standards and reciprocal setbacks associated with both the standard and
expedited reviews.
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard
Review Expedited Review
Air Quality
Minimize all
emissions
95% VOC
(Volatile
Organic
Compounds)
destruction
98% VOC destruction 98% VOC destruction
Flares and
combustion
devices
-No open flares
-Automatic
flame ignition
system
-No open flares
-Automatic flame ignition
system with surveillance
-No open flares
-Automatic flame ignition
system with surveillance
210
December 4, 2012
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard
Review Expedited Review
Pollution
Prevention
-Leak Detection
Program
Required
-Air Quality Mitigation plan
required
- Leak Detection Program
required
-Reduce methane emissions
during maintenance
-Air Quality Mitigation
plan required
- Leak Detection Program
required
-Reduce methane
emissions during
maintenance
Containment Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Require Closed Loop Pitless
systems
Require Closed Loop
Pitless systems
Pneumatic
Controllers
Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Use no or low bleed devices Use no or low bleed
devices
Electric Engines Required for
pumping units
and compressors
Required for pumping units and
compressors
Required for pumping
units and compressors
Green
Completions
Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Capture gas during completion
or use completion combustion
devices rather than flare or
vent
Capture gas during
completion or use
completion combustion
devices rather than flare
or vent
Air Quality
Monitoring
December 4, 2012
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard
Review Expedited Review
Soil Gas
Monitoring
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
-Monitor soil gas within 90
days of well completion
-Results may trigger additional
groundwater monitoring
-Monitor soil gas within
90 days of well completion
-Results may trigger
additional groundwater
monitoring
Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Protection
Must ensure no
significant
degradation
-Must be set back 500 feet from
a waterbody, stream, wetland,
Natural Area or Park
-Compliance with all buffer
standards
-Cannot qualify if within
500 feet of a waterbody,
stream, wetland, Natural
Area or Park
-Compliance with all
buffer
standards
Existing
Vegetation
Minimize
disturbance
Preservation of
existing vegetation,
mitigation requirements
Preservation of
existing vegetation,
mitigation requirements
General Conditions that apply to all oil and gas operations, regardless of the review track
selected
Emergency
Response
Must have a plan in compliance with the International Fire Code
- Include emergency contact information for the operator
- Trigger/threshold levels identified to determine when a state of
emergency should be declared
- Spills shall be immediately reported
- Establish a process for the operator to notify neighbors regarding
risks and establish a communication process
Transportation - Access roads and access points shall be provided, reviewed, and approved
December 4, 2012
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard
Review Expedited Review
Reciprocal setbacks – applies to future residential development proposals in proximity of oil
and gas operations
Abandoned and
plugged wells
Setback ranges from 20-50 feet from the abandoned and plugged well, based
on screening, berming, and fencing options
Any oil and gas
well that has not
been plugged and
abandoned
Setback ranges from 150-250 feet from all other wells, based on screening,
berming and fencing options
From a safety perspective, the minimum setback should never be less than
150’
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Land Use Code regulations, in either Option A or Option B will require
interdisciplinary oversight in the development review process beyond the typical development
review process. For example, additional staff time from representatives from Environmental
Sustainability and Utilities will be required to evaluate the air and water quality elements of any
proposed oil and gas operation.
If Council indicates staff should continue to pursue the non-regulatory options, e.g., the Local
Government Designee, Intergovernmental Agreements for inspection authority, etc., then the
financial requirements from the City will increase. Funds for these efforts have been allocated
through the 2013-2014 Budget (Offer 197.2 Oil and Gas Liaison).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
While the proposed Land Use Code regulations are designed to protect the City’s quality of life,
sense of place, and public health, oil and gas drilling within the city still could have significant
impacts on air quality and water quality, and there is also concern about the increased risk of spills
and releases of hazardous materials due to an increase in use, storage and transportation of such
materials. In addition, there are high volumes of truck and heavy equipment associated with oil
fields.
In addition to these impacts, well pads and service roads are fragmenting wildlife habitat, on a
massive scale in northeastern Colorado and in other communities throughout the western United
States. The City’s Natural Areas, both within and outside of the City, are threatened by this
fragmentation. While there is conflicting technical information regarding air and water quality
threats, there is little doubt that oil and gas drilling would negatively affect the environment in the
community and does not support the City’s goals for sustainability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff presents the following options to the Council for consideration:
213
December 4, 2012
Option A: Dual-track development review process
This option includes both expedited and standard review.
• The expedited review track requires operators to meet specific, objective criteria and agree
to increased setbacks, e.g., 500 feet from an occupied structure, water body, natural area,
or City park and 150 feet from any property line. By electing to meet these more
prescriptive standards, a public hearing and neighborhood meeting are not required.
Instead, notification is provided when an application is received, and if an application is
approved. Written comments can be submitted to the Director during the review process.
The Director has the final decision-making authority.
• The standard review track requires the operator to locate a well and operate in a manner
that does not significant degrade our quality of life. All standard review applications are
subject to a neighborhood meeting and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Board. All Board decisions are appealable to the City Council.
Option B: Single-track development review process
This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review
process. Under this option, all development review applications would be processed under a single
review track and be required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Option C: Moratorium
Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to prevent new oil and gas operations
within their jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to
allow the state to address its rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality
regulations.
Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is currently addressing its rules by
considering amendments to water sampling and monitoring as well as addressing well setbacks and
noise. The City secured Party Status for both rulemaking hearings, making Fort Collins the only
city with such status and providing the City with an opportunity to submit comments on the state’s
proposals, recommend alternatives, and a greater length of time to speak before the Commission.
The state is reviewing its existing setback rules. New rules are anticipated to be in place early in
2013. Setbacks for new wells from existing homes are an important consideration for several
reasons – there is uncertainty about emissions from well sites and the process of drilling and
maintaining a well site could cause noise, traffic and light impacts. The current setbacks for new
wells are 150 feet from an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area and 500 feet from
some structures like hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing
the state setbacks from homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. The City of Fort Collins will seek
additional setback distance, greater powers for residents in influencing site location proposals, and
protection for community assets like natural areas and parks.
214
December 4, 2012
Water quality is another area that the Commission is currently addressing. The proposal under
consideration adopts an industry-sponsored voluntary program and makes that program mandatory.
Under the program, baseline groundwater quality samples will be collected from two existing
groundwater features, such as permitted and registered groundwater wells or groundwater seeps
and springs, which are located within 1/2 mile of the surface location of new oil and gas well pads,
or additional wells on existing well pads. These samples will be collected before drilling begins.
A second sample will be collected from each groundwater feature within one to three years after
drilling is completed. If the state’s rules on water quality monitoring are amended, the City may
also need to modify proposed Land Use Code regulations as presented in Option A or B or in
development submittal requirements.
Staff also requests direction on suggested state, regional, and “other” local options, including:
• Engage in stakeholder processes
• Continue with Local Government Designee
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the State for inspection authority
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the County for the GMA
• Advocate for more legislative change
• Consider entering into an operator agreement with the producer of the Fort Collins Field
• Develop a “model” surface use agreement that can be used for any city-owned lands
BOARD / COMISSION RECOMMENDATION
City staff presented the proposed Land Use Code regulations and associated non-regulatory options
to numerous City boards and commissions.
Formal recommendations were made by the Water Board (8-1), the Natural Resources Advisory
Board (6-1), and the Air Quality Advisory Board (7-0) to support the Standard (Type II) and
Expedited (Basic Development Review) processes and associated regulations.
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted 6-0 to support the use of standard review
when considering applications on City-owned Natural Areas. The Board further recommended a
six month temporary moratorium on new oil and gas applications to provide staff with additional
time to develop additional options.
While the Air Quality Advisory Board indicated support for the Standard and Expedited review, the
Board also expressed additional non-regulatory options that staff should pursue. These
recommendations are included in Attachment 14.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A multidisciplinary City staff team worked to develop an understanding of the oil and gas industry,
community concerns related to industry practices, and the statewide regulatory processes in place.
This group researched industry exploration and extraction practices, working closely with peer
municipalities throughout the Front Range to identify and incorporate the best practices of other
Colorado municipalities into local regulation of the industry. The research process included local
focus group meetings, formation of an Oil and Gas Advisory Committee that included
representatives from eight City boards and commissions, talking with state experts and meetings
215
December 4, 2012
with Colorado State University professors and researchers, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission staff, and the local oil and gas operators.
The Oil and Gas Advisory Committee was created to gather input from a diverse group of boards
and commissions. The group met three times as public meetings and provided input to staff on draft
regulations. The Committee included self-selected representatives from eight City boards and
commissions, including the Air Quality Advisory Board, Economic Advisory Commission, Energy
Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and
Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and Water Board.
Staff conducted meetings with small groups of interested citizens. Residents of the Hearthfire
subdivision met with staff and continued to communicate over the course of the project. Outreach
included a focus group with representatives of local environmental groups before and after the
development of draft regulations. Staff met with Don’t Frack the Fort, a group generated by mutual
concern over hydraulic fracturing in the community, four times.
Staff attended numerous public meetings on the subject of oil and gas development hosted by other
groups.”
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, discussed the
options available for Council consideration: a dual-track development review option, a single-track
development review option, and a moratorium. She reviewed the existing wells within the City and
growth management area and noted the only operational field within City limits involves oil
production, not gas production. Staff is recommending that Council adopt some type of regulations
given rapidly changing technology in the drilling industry.
Kadrich reviewed the State agencies which permit and regulate the oil and gas industry and
reviewed the regional aspects of potential regulations. The County does not currently consider an
oil and gas permit to be development activity.
Kadrich detailed the three options available for Council consideration and discussed the proposed
regulations.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported the moratorium option.
Dr. Milt Garrett, 720 Kirkwood, supported a ban on all fracking.
Laurie Brunswig, 1905 Ridgewood, Water Boardmember, supported the moratorium option.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the moratorium option.
John Fye,1405 Briarwood Road, supported the moratorium option.
Fred Kirsch, Community for Sustainable Energy, supported a toxic alert system.
Margo Geppert, 2818 McKeag Drive, discussed the health risks of oil and gas drilling and supported
the moratorium option.
216
December 4, 2012
Todd Simmons, Larimer County resident, supported the moratorium option.
Debra Joy, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option and a complete ban on fracking.
Brian Hull, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Marley Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, discussed the health risks of fracking to children.
Janice Lynne, 218 South Washington, discussed the split estate doctrine and suggested it should be
revised.
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported a ban on fracking citing water contamination concerns.
Hunter Buffington, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported the moratorium option.
Mayah Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported a ban on fracking citing health risks.
Zach Heath, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Becky Boutz, 6350 Kremmers Lane, LaPorte, supported a ban on fracking.
Bill Jenkins, 710 Mathews, supported the moratorium option.
Jake Matter, 1525 Sherman Street, Denver, Assistant Attorney General representing the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, opposed the adoption of regulations or a moratorium.
Joe Kissell, 913 West Oak, opposed hydraulic fracking and supported the moratorium option.
Leo Buslato, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Liz Pruzner, Natural Resources Advisory Board, stated the Board supports Council moving forward
with the highest level of protection for the city and personally supported the moratorium option.
Elizabeth Shudeth supported a ban on fracking, or at least a moratorium.
Paul Smith, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, opposed fracking and discussed legislation.
Robert Winkler, Northern Colorado resident, supported an indefinite moratorium on fracking.
Jim Jeffrys, 2225 Branson Street, supported the moratorium and eventual ban on fracking.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, supported an option that would require Prospect Energy not conduct
or attempt to permit any new well or fracking within the city limits for up to six months, or until the
City approves a mutually-agreeable operating agreement between Prospect Energy and the City of
Fort Collins.
217
December 4, 2012
Zach Weeks, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option and an eventual ban on
fracking.
Clint Rhodd, Colorado resident, stated fracking chemicals are environmentally friendly.
Dave Bell, Fort Collins resident, supported sustainable energy and a ban on fracking.
Chris Giblar, 6321 Treestead Road, supported the moratorium option.
Rudi Ziti, 1626 Fantail, stated no impacts on ground water have occurred as a result of hydraulic
fracking and stated energy needs cannot be met solely by sustainable sources. He opposed any
Council action on regulations.
Rob Willis, attorney for Prospect Energy, opposed any Council action on regulations.
Philip Friedman, Natural Resource Advisory Board, supported Option B as well as a moratorium
and ultimate ban on fracking.
Tom Hoehn, 218 South Washington, supported a ban on fracking.
Ward Giltner, Prospect Energy, opposed Council action on regulations.
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road, supported the moratorium option and an ultimate ban on fracking.
Sarah Landry, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, requested additional time to explore an operator
agreement with Prospect Energy and opposed the moratorium option.
Jerry Gerber, Fort Collins resident, questioned why fracking is being considered and stated it is an
extreme measure.
Mary Griggs, Prospect Energy, discussed the safety and permitted emissions of the Prospect Energy
field.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported the moratorium option.
Erin Lamb, 1476 Edgewood Court, stated the LGD process works and supported collaboration with
Prospect Energy citing the fiscal benefits of the industry.
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, supported the moratorium option.
Rico Moore, Fort Collins resident, supported a ban on fracking.
Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported a six-month moratorium upon the
submittal of a new application for drilling.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
218
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak asked what would occur should an operator who is not part of any operating
agreement pull a permit. Kadrich replied the City would immediately begin negotiations with that
operator. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, concurred.
Councilmember Horak asked about existing state setback requirements which appear to show the
majority of City of Fort Collins land area being restricted from oil and gas development. Kadrich
replied that assessment is correct.
Councilmember Horak asked how many acres within the city and growth management area are
available for oil and gas development and how that would change given various setbacks.
Weinheimer replied acreages were not examined and acquisition of that data would require
additional research. Councilmember Horak requested the information prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak asked if any work was done to look at the locations of shale deposits and the
likelihood of their development based on various setbacks. Weinheimer replied it was unclear if that
type of research was necessary based on some of the surface uses and the setbacks.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the setback requirements with respect to parks and natural
areas. Weinheimer replied there is a process called the Designated Outside Activity Area which is
part of the state setback rule-making process. There is talk of limiting the application to an ingress
and egress for emergency services. There was a recommendation from staff to consider a
recommendation to the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to exclude the use of city parks and
natural areas.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the current usage criteria. Weinheimer replied that current
criteria would be better applied to parks than natural areas.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many well permits have been pulled for the City of Fort Collins.
Kadrich replied there have been no permits pulled through the City of Fort Collins process. All
existing operating wells were permitted previously and annexed into the city.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the location of the nearest well permit around Fort Collins.
Weinheimer replied Timnath and Larimer County have both had permit activity.
Councilmember Troxell asked if staff studied geologic mapping for the Fort Collins area. Kadrich
replied the geological maps were examined for the existing Fort Collins field. Additionally, staff
met with geologists from Colorado State University regarding that field and the southeast part of
town where drilling may be a possibility.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged a better understanding of the existing geologic conditions and
a tracking of neighboring permits. He asked about the outcome of studies of odors near the existing
field. Weinheimer replied a pond feature in the Hearthfire subdivision was the cause of the odor.
Councilmember Troxell noted Options A and B have been modeled after Boulder’s standards and
questioned whether they match what is needed in Fort Collins. Kadrich replied some of the
standards may not be what is required for the Fort Collins field. However, there are some areas in
the southeast part of the city limits, or near the city limits, that may be developed differently than
what is in the Fort Collins field.
219
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Manvel clarified water is not being pumped out of the ground; the water being used
is recirculated. He expressed appreciation for staff work on the item and stated he is leaning toward
a moratorium in order to get any possible regulations correct. He suggested the issues of street
maintenance, financial consequences and local impact fees should be addressed. He also noted the
water usage issue needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Manvel requested input regarding the potential tension with the Colorado State
Land Board regarding a moratorium on oil and gas development at the Soapstone Natural Area.
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, replied about a third of the minerals at Soapstone and
Meadow Springs Ranch are owned by the State Land Board. The other two-thirds are privately
owned. He expressed concern that the State may be taken aback by a moratorium.
Councilmember Manvel encouraged collaboration with the State Land Board prior to Second
Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Option C currently includes natural areas. City Attorney Roy
replied the expanded version of the Option was in Council’s packet; however, the original published
version did not include natural areas.
Mayor Pro Tem made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 145,
2012, establishing a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of land use permit applications and
other applications seeking approval to conduct oil and gas extraction or related operations within
the City of Fort Collins, Option C, as provided in Council’s read-before packet, on First Reading.
City Attorney Roy read the differences between the Ordinance as provided in Council’s packet
versus the originally published version, which included three new whereas clauses to include the
City’s natural areas and parks outside of the City limits.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated his comments are not directed toward Fort Collins’ existing operator,
Prospect Energy. He read a passage from the staff report indicating the potential risks of drilling
and noted this moratorium is not a ban, but a time-out to allow the opportunity to ensure the next
step is the best one for the community. He stated he would like the impact to wildlife, habitat
fragmentation, and restoration to be addressed in the future.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion. The City should be willing to support
and work with Prospect Energy.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for Prospect Energy in its efforts to work with the
community.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion. He noted the City does not have any
regulatory authority over oil and gas development in the County, despite the growth management
area. He supported an operator agreement with Prospect Energy.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the events that led up to these options and stated she would support the
moratorium as the City has reached a point where the state regulations have not done exactly what
is correct for this community.
220
December 4, 2012
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak, and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that Council direct
the staff to recommend the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, at its upcoming rule-
making proceeding that the setbacks of oil and gas exploration activities from occupied buildings
be as follows: (1) new oil and gas facilities must be set back from existing homes at least 1,000 feet
unless an applicant obtains local government approval and homeowner consent to locate the
operation closer, which approval would be obtained only under the following conditions: (a) cities
and operators would have at least one community meeting regarding the application where input
could be provided by citizens, which input could alter the location or other characteristics of the
proposed oil and gas facility, (b) the community meeting would be posted publically for all
interested parties to attend and residents living within ½ mile would receive written notice of the
meeting at least two weeks prior to the meeting, (c) if the proposed setback distance conflicted with
the other community goals, such as the protection of the natural areas and parks and zoning
compatibility, then the city and the operator would have to negotiate an acceptable drilling and
operation site; (2) as a heavy industrial process, oil and gas production facilities would have to be
sited in industrial zones or other zoning districts deemed appropriate by the city; (3) drilling and
production operations in natural areas and community parks should be prohibited; (4) further study
of human environmental health should be conducted to ensure that setbacks are appropriate.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the Sierra Club has recommended a setback of 2,000 feet and asked
that their research be analyzed.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson clarified that staff should continue to work on regulations during the
moratorium period.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. in order to complete the business on the agenda.
Councilmember Poppaw requested an estimate on the time needed for the next four items. City
Manager Atteberry replied the next three items would likely be five minutes each and the final item
has a brief staff report.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to extend
the meeting only to 11:00 p.m.
221
December 4, 2012
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Ohlson,
Weitkunat, Troxell and Manvel.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on the motion to extend the meeting was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Ohlson, Weitkunat,
Troxell and Manvel. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 146, 2012,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review
of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City
Manager.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
Car Allowance
$ 197,203
8,640
588
345
828
5,916
19,720
9,000
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 243,365
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City
222
December 4, 2012
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Manager Darin Atteberry’s
2013 salary.”
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the City’s pay philosophy is to pay
employees a salary that is market-based and competitive, allowing the City to attract and retain
quality employees needed to execute the vision and mission of the City of Fort Collins. City
employees will be granted merit increases based on performance and position in the range and skill
level increases will occur based on attainment, demonstration, and performance. City Manager data
is gathered nationally and within the Front Range. The City Manager is 9% behind the national
market.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated a responsible Council should not be considering a
salary increase for the City Manager, but should be considering suspending him based on the loan
made for the RMI2 project.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 146, 2012, on First Reading, with a five percent salary increase inserted. He noted this increase
is almost double that of the average for all City employees. He expressed appreciation for the work
of the City Manager.
Councilmember Troxell thanked City Manager Atteberry for his service to Council and the
community.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for City Manager Atteberry’s leadership and service.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked City Manager Atteberry for his work and service.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 147, 2012,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review
of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City
Attorney.
223
December 4, 2012
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
$ 165,691
8,640
588
289
696
4,971
16,569
Vacation (32.5 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 198,569
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Attorney Roy’s 2013 salary.”
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the City Attorney compensation is 2.1%
behind the national market.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated tax payers fund these salaries. He commented on the
RMI2 loan.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 147, 2012, on First Reading, with a three percent salary increase inserted.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for City Attorney Roy’s work and service.
Councilmember Horak asked why the regional market is being considered for the City Attorney
salary comparisons. Sharkey replied it was a market that was identified in 2008 by Council for
review for the City Manager and the City Attorney. National data was collected since 2008.
Councilmember Horak stated the western regional market is not relevant when looking at this
position.
Councilmember Manvel agreed and requested that staff examine that issue.
224
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Poppaw expressed appreciation for City Attorney Roy’s work for Council and the
community.
Councilmember Troxell commended City Attorney Roy on his service.
Mayor Weitkunat commended City Attorney Roy on his professionalism and work that consistently
surpasses expectations.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended the integrity of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal
Judge.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Employment of the Municipal Judge, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
B. Resolution 2012-116 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
the Tenth Addendum to the Judge’s Employment Agreement.
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review
of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the
Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2012-116 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire December 31, 2014
and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge’s employment agreement to reflect
the change in term.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article VII, Section 1 of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term
of two years. Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective
July 1, 1989. Resolution 2010-074 reappointed Judge Lane for a two-year term ending on
December 31, 2012. This Resolution reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire
December 31, 2014 and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge’s employment
agreement to reflect her new term of office.
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
225
December 4, 2012
recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and
the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary (0.8 FTE)
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
$ 95,436
8,640
588
167
401
2,863
9,544
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 118,764
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane’s 2013 salary.”
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the Municipal Judge salary is 6% behind
the Colorado market.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 148, 2012, on First Reading, inserting a four percent salary increase.
Councilmember Manvel commented on Judge Lane’s outstanding work and service.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated it may take two years for the Municipal Judge and City Manager
salaries to come even with market. Both employees were ranked very high in performance.
Councilmember Horak stated the total compensation package should be considered rather than just
salary. He encouraged staff to examine that topic.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Judge Lane for her service and increased efficiencies.
Councilmember Troxell commended Judge Lane on her service.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for Judge Lane’s professionalism.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
226
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-116. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Ordinance No. 149, 2012,
Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full
Ownership and Control of the Applicant or Developer, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before
an application can be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must
own or control all of the property that is the subject of the application. Staff recommends that the
City Council amend the LUC to give the Director discretion to allow applications to proceed
through the review process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject property is yet
controlled by the applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the
applicant has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be
developed. The Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be
contrary to the public interest, and the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents
related to the processing of the application until the applicant had gained control of the entire
property. The applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against any third party claims
related to the processing of the application.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Currently the Section 2.2.3 (C) (1) of the LUC limits the Director from submitting applications to
the Planning and Zoning Board and/or Hearing Officers until such time as documentation is
presented that the applicant “has the requisite power, authority, clear title, good standing,
qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the development and/or activities requested in the
development application.”. Further, Section 2.2.4 of the LUC states that an application cannot be
processed or presented to a decision maker until the Director determines that it is complete and
ready for review, and the determination of sufficiency cannot be based on the perceived merits of
the development proposal.
The intent of these provisions appears to be to avoid expending City resources on proposals that
may never come to fruition. In most situations, this makes sense. Sometimes, however, these
requirements can cause unnecessary, costly delays that may work to the detriment not only of the
developer but also the City.
Therefore, staff is recommending that these LUC provisions be amended to allow for more flexibility
in the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in determining whether
227
December 4, 2012
the review of a particular development proposal can and should move ahead in advance of all
submittal requirements being met.
Additionally, the fact that an application may be allowed to proceed through the review process will
not entitle the applicant to actually commence development of the proposed project unless and until
all other relevant Land Use Code provisions have been met, including the execution of a final plat
and the issuance of building permits.
The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the decision maker
under the provisions of this Section shall not cause a post denial re-submittal delay under the
provisions of Section 2.2.11(D) (9).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The LUC amendment will allow for
more flexibility in the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in
determining whether the review of a particular development proposal can and should move ahead
in advance of all submittal requirements being met.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
If approved on First Reading, the Land Use Code amendment will be considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board at a special meeting in mid-December so that the Council would have the Board’s
recommendation prior to Second Reading on December 18.”
Mayor Weitkunat recused herself from the discussion of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending
Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of Applications for the Development
of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership and Control of the Applicant or Developer, due to a
potential conflict of interest.
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated this item is
a proposal to examine what submittal requirements would be necessary in order for the Director to
move a project development toward one of the hearing boards when the land may not be under full
ownership or control of the applicant.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, asked if this Land Use Code amendment would allow developers
to overwhelm the City with applications based on land they have little intent of acquiring unless they
can push through the City process.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Land Use Code should protect the citizens. He
questioned whether or not this change would protect citizens.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested input regarding Mr. Cunniff’s question. Kadrich replied the
developer or applicant would need to have a majority ownership in the development and the process
is quite costly in order to get a project to hearing.
Councilmember Troxell requested staff input regarding what would be detrimental to the public
interest with regard to accepting an application for development review. Kadrich replied she would
228
December 4, 2012
look at the totality of the application, the other information that has been submitted relative to the
ownership of the property, and look for something in the developer’s proposal that would be
detrimental to the public interest if this project was reviewed. Going through the process does not
allow the applicant or developer to build upon property of which they do not have entire ownership.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this process is necessary for possible future eminent domain
discussions. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative and stated processing the application is not
a prerequisite to the URA Board’s ability to authorize the acquisition of property.
Councilmember Manvel stated this process appears to make eminent domain a more viable option.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson questioned why this Ordinance was presented so quickly. City Manager
Atteberry acknowledged this tool will be very helpful with the Foothills Mall redevelopment project,
which has been an identified economic development project for at least the last eight years.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the Director will be able to determine an application is not
detrimental to the public good. City Attorney Roy replied this is a standard used elsewhere in the
Land Use Code for various decision-makers. Council could direct staff to develop more specific
criteria.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 149, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated this is a tool needed for certain land developments.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion as this tool reflects the more complex,
infill projects.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: Mayor Weitkunat returned at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Manvel received support from other Councilmembers to direct staff to work on the
issue of homelessness in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Troxell stated Boulder is considering a ban on retail marijuana stores in light of
Amendment 64, prior to the state regulations being developed. He requested that the City
Attorney’s Office research the reasoning behind this type of ban and the possibility of bringing the
issue before Council.
Councilmember Horak stated he is willing to consider the issue.
City Attorney Roy stated the State has an obligation to develop state regulations by July 1, 2013.
The City has an obligation to develop regulations by October; however, the City would only begin
to license businesses under those regulations if the State failed to develop regulations by July, or if,
229
December 4, 2012
having developed them, they failed to begin issuing licenses by the following January. He stated,
in his opinion, Council does not have a decision to make until the middle of 2013.
Councilmember Horak requested a work session item in order to provide the public and Council
with information on timing and direction.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
230
December 18, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 18,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Steve Johnson, Larimer County Commissioner, discussed the coordination and cooperative efforts
among various entities relating to the High Park Fire and recognized the City for its efforts.
Pamela Shaddock, Senator Udall’s Office, recognized the City for the 100th Anniversary of City
Park.
Matt Robbins, Colorado Lottery Community Relations Specialist, presented the City with the
Starburst Award to recognize excellence in the use of lottery funds for the Fossil Creek Trail.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry withdrew Item No. 18, Resolution 2012-121 Excusing the Absence of
Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz From Attendance at Meetings of the City Council During the
Period From November 8, 2012 Through January 15, 2013 from the Agenda.
Citizen Participation
Rob Kagen, 1225 Buttonwood Drive, thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the Parks and
Recreation Board.
Bill Mullaney discussed his views of corruption within the City.
Stacey Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed her son’s custody case.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, supported saving the Jack Benny hand prints in front of Cache
la Poudre Bank, requested alley names, and requested parabolic mirrors be installed at the exits of
the downtown parking structures.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the Sandy Hook school shooting and opposed tax
increment financing being used for the Rocky Mountain Innosphere.
231
December 18, 2012
Jack Daniels, 172 North College, stated Fort Collins has much to offer as a community.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, requested a review of the City’s Addition of a Permitted
Use process and suggested suspending the use of the process until the review is conducted.
Michelle Haefle, 623 Monte Vista Avenue, suggested suspending the use of the Addition of a
Permitted Use process in single-family neighborhoods until a review is completed.
Leo Buccellato, Fort Collins resident, discussed corruption in government and omissions in the
public process.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat stated the Planning and Zoning Board will be discussing the Addition of a
Permitted Use process.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the Planning website and information needs to be more readily
available for the public.
Councilmember Horak stated the Planning issue needs to be addressed immediately.
City Manager Atteberry stated the concerns regarding the parking garage will be addressed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the
University Station at the request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative
fencing, enhanced landscaped plaza, walkway lighting, spare conduit installation, and
upsizing of the storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff. These items are
not eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration as part of the MAX
BRT Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on December 4, 2012, appropriates the identified funds of $806,380 to
construct the improvements concurrently with the BRT project.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, adopts the
2013 Pay Plan, which establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the
framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City positions. The methodology
used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The 2013 Pay Plan uses average
actual salary data collected from public and private sector markets for benchmark positions
to determine pay range midpoints within occupational groups. Ranges for non-benchmark
jobs are established using a point factor system that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
232
December 18, 2012
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater
Management Program identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the
requirements. This inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins Design Criteria Manual allowing
emergency work to be exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) requirements of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities,
the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from
the requirements. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4,
2012, clarifies that emergency work will be exempt only from advance submittal
requirements, but not requirements for measures to prevent and control erosion.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to
Correct the List of Properties That Are Subject to the Special Fee Imposed by Said
Ordinance.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, amends
Ordinance No. 117, 2012, that established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property
within close proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25
and State Highway 392. The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel of property in Zone
A that is actually located within the Town of Windsor. This property should not have been
shown as being subject to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance. This Ordinance removes that
parcel of property and slightly adjusts the area of the property owned by Terry and Mary
Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property size.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance
review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary
of the City Manager at $207,063.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance
review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary
of the City Attorney at $170,662.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance
review of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on December 4, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the Municipal Judge
at $99,253.
233
December 18, 2012
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements
Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (MAX BRT) Project staff has identified two additional
real estate acquisition interests which are necessary to construct the MAX BRT Project. As
with prior acquisitions/acquisition phases, City Council authorization for eminent domain
(if necessary) is the first step in the acquisitions process.
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
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.
The acquisitions that are the subject of this Ordinance concern two sets of property interests
(more specifically, two signboard easements, leasehold interests and improvements) located
within the alignment of planned BRT Project improvements on Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway (the “BNSF”) property. (Note: As background, on November 6, City Council
upheld an appeal to an August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision, thereby
disallowing a ZBA variance that would have permitted the relocation of one of the off-
premise signboards which is the subject of this Ordinance).
14. Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape Standards”
for the City of Fort Collins.
.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions
Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards &
Guidelines document with a new version entitled “City of Fort Collins Streetscape
Standards”. Ordinance No. 152, 2012 updates the City’s Low Impact Development Criteria
and Policy regarding the control and treatment of stormwater runoff from streets and site
development.
The Streetscape Standards relate to the treatment of parkway strips (between the curb and
sidewalk), medians, intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway intersections. The update
234
December 18, 2012
primarily involves raising the bar for the quality of streetscape development in arterial
medians and at key gateway intersections.
The City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Criteria and Policy addresses the City’s
requirements and incentives for more distributed stormwater runoff management and control
which relies mainly on filtration and infiltration to treat and manage the stormwater runoff.
This approach will apply to private site development projects as well as to public street
projects.
15. Resolution 2012-118 Approving Fee Agreements Between the City and Certain Property
Owners in the Community Activity Center Adjacent to the Interchange at the Interstate 25
and State Highway 392.
On November 6, 2012, Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special fee
to be paid by the owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close
proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State
Highway 392. This ordinance included the option for the property owners to elect to enter
into a settlement agreement with the City and the Town of Windsor as outlined in the
attached draft agreements. The ordinance also required the property owners electing to enter
into such agreement to notify the City Manager in writing of their desire to do so on or
before November 30, 2012, and that the agreements need to be approved by the City Council
on or before December 31, 2012.
To date, the City has received written notice from all of the properties within the City’s
jurisdiction electing to pay the fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written
agreement with the City. This resolution authorizes the City Manager to sign said
agreements with the property owners.
16. Resolution 2012-119 Adopting an Updated City Investment Policy.
The purpose of the Interagency Loan Program is to support City services, missions, and
values by making loans to outside entities such as the Urban Renewal Authority and the
Downtown Development Authority while maintaining an adequate rate or return for the City.
The 2012 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
1. A Purpose Statement was added to the Inter-agency Loan Program
2. The name changed from Inter-fund Borrowing Program to Inter-agency Loan
Program
3. The loan must be evidenced by a promissory note
4. The interest rate is the higher of Municipal Bonds or Treasury Bill rate plus 0.5%
5. A nexus is not required for utility funds
6. Approval from oversight board is required
7. Maximum loan term is 25 years
8. Restrictions on total loans made to Governmental and Enterprise funds.
235
December 18, 2012
17. Resolution 2012-120 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and
Authorities of the City of Fort Collins.
Vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to
resignations of boardmembers and the expiration of terms of current members. Applications
were solicited during September, and Council teams interviewed applicants during October,
November, and December. This Resolution appoints members to fill current vacancies and
term expirations.
18. Resolution 2012-121 Excusing the Absence of Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz From
Attendance at Meetings of the City Council During the Period From November 8, 2012
Through January 15, 2013.
Under the City Charter, a Council seat is considered vacant if the Councilmember misses
regular and special meetings for 60 consecutive days, unless excused by resolution of the
Council. Due to illness, Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz was last able to attend meetings
of the City Council on November 6, 2012, and will be unavailable to resume such
attendance until at least January 15, 2013.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay
Plan.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to
Correct the List of Properties That Are Subject to the Special Fee Imposed by Said
Ordinance.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
236
December 18, 2012
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code
to Allow for the Processing of Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under
the Full Ownership and Control of the Applicant or Developer.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance
or Processing of Land Use Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications
Seeking Approval to Conduct Oil and Gas Extraction or Related Operations Within the City
of Fort Collins.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements
Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
14. Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape Standards”
for the City of Fort Collins.
.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions
Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2012, Designating the Whitcomb Street Historic
District as a Fort Collins Landmark District, Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2012, Amending Article IV of Chapter 15 of the City
Code relating to Door-to-Door Solicitation.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2012, Amending Section 2-483 of the City Code So as
to Make the Conflict of Interest Provisions Contained in Article IV, Section 9 of the City
Charter Applicable to the Members of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 10, 11, and 16, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
City Manager, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City
Code and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney, and Resolution 2012-119 Adopting an Updated
City Investment Policy from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak, and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
237
December 18, 2012
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell asked about an item related to parking lots and low-impact development
in Item No. 14, Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives. He
requested information prior to Second Reading regarding how this directly impacts the decreased
costs related to stormwater detention ponds.
Staff Reports
Dean Klingner, Interim Engineering Capital Projects Manager, updated Council on the Turnberry
Road Improvement Project.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson reported on the City’s assistance with a request from Disabled Resource
Services for a permanent home.
Mayor Weitkunat stated Fort Collins has been recognized by the National League of Cities for forty-
five years of participation in the organization.
Ordinance No. 149, 2012,
Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership
and Control of the Applicant or Developer, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before
an application can be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must
own or control all of the property that is the subject of the application. This Ordinance, adopted
on First Reading on December 4, 2012 by a vote of 4-1 (Nays: Ohlson; Weitkunat recused; Kottwitz
absent) amends the LUC to give the Director discretion to allow applications to proceed through
the review process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject property is yet
controlled by the applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the
applicant has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be
developed. The Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be
contrary to the public interest, and the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents
related to the processing of the application until the applicant had gained control of the entire
property. The applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against any third party claims
related to the processing of the application.”
Mayor Weitkunat recused herself from the discussion of this item due to a possible conflict of
interest.
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, stated the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of this Ordinance and recommended
238
December 18, 2012
strengthening the language in one section in order to make it clear that if a project was denied
through this process, that the actual owner of a property would still be able to seek an application
and not be affected by the six-month delay.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, suggested this option appears a bit heavy handed. He asked if other
cities have a similar process.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated applications to the Urban Renewal Authority for tax
increment assistance are not to be received by the URA until the development review process for
the project has achieved certain objectives. He expressed concern that this takes away from property
owners’ power.
Councilmember Horak asked if other cities have used a similar process. Kadrich replied she has not
checked with other cities specifically but stated other cities in which she has worked have allowed
applications to go forward under these circumstances.
Councilmember Poppaw read from an email from a citizen who was concerned that this could lead
to rampant permitted speculation solely for personal profit. Kadrich replied developers often have
purchase contracts which are dependent upon development approvals and the development process
is quite expensive; therefore, she does not believe this change will result in speculation as described.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if a trial period for this change would be an option. City Attorney
Roy replied it is an option.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the City’s expenses are covered in the process if the submittal
terminates unsuccessfully. Kadrich replied the actual development process costs are covered. The
initial planning or discussion time leading up to the development is not covered; however, that is
no different than any other project.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 149, 2012, on Second Reading, with the addition of the language as mentioned by Kadrich.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson questioned why Land Use Code change suggestions made by Council could
take six to twelve months to enact when this change has moved much more quickly. City Manager
Atteberry replied this tool was developed for the Foothills Mall project, which has a certain level
of urgency. However, the tool could be used for additional projects.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the Ordinance as it is well-crafted.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Poppaw, Kottwitz, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
Ohlson.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. and Mayor Weitkunat
returned at this point in the meeting.)
239
December 18, 2012
Ordinance No. 145, 2012,
Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance or Processing of Land Use
Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications Seeking
Approval to Conduct Oil and Gas Extraction or Related Operations
Within the City of Fort Collins, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 4, 2012, Council considered regulation of oil and gas exploration and production and
unanimously voted to impose a six-month moratorium on the submission, acceptance, consideration
and approval of any all applications for City licenses, permits and other approvals related in any
way to oil and gas uses within the City. The moratorium will allow staff and Council time to further
investigate the extent of the City’s authority to regulate such uses. In order to give the newly seated
Council time to consider the regulations to be developed during the moratorium, staff is
recommending that the moratorium be extended on Second Reading to seven months rather than six.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to postpone new oil and gas operations
within their jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to
allow the state to address its rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality
regulations.
Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is currently considering
amendments to existing and proposed area of rulemaking: (1) water sampling and monitoring, and
(2) addressing well setbacks and noise. The City secured Party Status for both rulemaking hearings,
making Fort Collins the only city with such status. Party Status provides the City with an
opportunity to submit written comments on the state’s proposals, recommend alternatives, and a
greater length of time to speak before the Commission.
Water Quality:
The proposal under consideration adopts an industry-sponsored voluntary program and makes that
program mandatory. Under this proposed program, baseline groundwater quality samples would
be collected from two existing groundwater features, such as permitted and registered groundwater
wells or groundwater seeps and springs, which are located within 1/2 mile of the surface location
of new oil and gas well pads, or additional wells on existing well pads. These samples will be
collected before drilling begins. A second sample will be collected from each groundwater feature
within one to three years after drilling is completed. Fort Collins submitted comments on this
proposal, asking that additional samples are collected and for more frequent monitoring of water
wells to ensure water contamination does not occur. If the state’s rules on water quality monitoring
are amended, the City may also need to modify proposed Land Use Code regulations as presented
in Option A or B or in development submittal requirements.
240
December 18, 2012
Setbacks:
The state is reviewing its existing setback rules, with new rules anticipated by early 2013. Setbacks
for new wells from existing homes are an important consideration for several reasons – there is
uncertainty about emissions from well sites and the process of drilling and maintaining a well site
could cause noise, traffic and lighting impacts. The current setbacks for new wells are 150 feet from
an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area and 500 feet from some structures like
hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing the state setbacks from
homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. At the Commission hearing on setbacks, the City of Fort Collins
will seek additional setback distance from occupied buildings, greater powers for residents in
influencing site location proposals, and protection for community assets like natural areas and
parks.
City Council direction for additional work during moratorium
• Monitor COGCC and present City Council recommendations (attachment 2) during the
rulemaking process as described above. Incorporate, as needed, any changes into proposed
Land Use Code (LUC) amendments.
• Monitor COGCC and present City Council recommendations (attachment 2) to any relevant
bills considered during the 2013 State of Colorado Legislative Session, especially as any
further legislation is considered related to air or water quality.
• Develop maps that address the following:
N Identify the geological formations present within the City and the Growth
Management Area
N Identify the locations of oil and shale gas deposits including the various formations
N Map the locations of all wells within those areas and locations currently seeking
permits to drill and include mineral ownership information where available
N Visually extend the setback criteria into the Growth Management Area
N Identify areas currently exempt from drilling, and areas that would be exempt if
additional setback criteria were adopted by the COGCC
• Evaluate the impact of proposed regulations on existing and future oil and gas operations
and consider code amendments as needed for addressing the differences in oil extraction
compared to gas or methane production. Staff should specifically consider whether soil gas
testing is needed for both.
• Update the Best Practice Matrix dated August 27, 2012 to include LUC Option A and B as
well as more specific information on street maintenance, financial consequences, local
impact fee, cultural resources, reclamation, and water source disclosure.
• Propose an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County that ensures any oil and gas
activity within the GMA would be considered new development and as such annexed into the
city and permitted under the city’s development process.
• Negotiate and present a proposal for adopting an operator agreement with Prospect Energy,
the owner and operator of the Fort Collins Field.
241
December 18, 2012
• Re-engage the boards and stakeholder groups and seek their recommendations regarding
the proposed LUC amendments (Option A or Option B).
• Provide additional information regarding surface use agreements, especially as the
agreement relates to habitat fragmentation and restoration; include examples.
• Identify areas that may be considered for a Designated Outside Activity Area, and have
setbacks from oil and gas activities in alignment with High Density Area setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. In addition, in order to give the
newly seated Council time to consider the regulations to be developed during the moratorium, staff
is recommending that the moratorium be extended on Second Reading to seven months rather than
six.”
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, stated the
moratorium for new applications or new activity within the city limits, or on City-owned lands
outside of the city limits, would run from December 28, 2012 through June 30, 3013. The purpose
of the moratorium is to allow the gathering of additional information that might influence the Land
Use Code process or other processes related to regulation in the city limits or on City-owned lands.
Additionally, this time will allow for new state regulations to be discussed. Kadrich reviewed
Council’s recommendations for state regulations.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported the moratorium and additional efforts to protect the health
and safety of the community.
Becky Boutz, Laporte resident, supported the moratorium and discussed potential health risks of
fracking.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, stated his company has gone above and beyond state regulations and
desires good community relations. He requested Council consider exempting the area in which his
company is drilling from the moratorium, during which time he has given his word that no
additional drilling or fracking will occur.
Rico Moore, Fort Collins resident, supported a ban on fracking.
Danny Esser, 2133 Ford Lane, requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking on
the April ballot and supported a minimum of a nine month moratorium.
Valerie Cotton, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium.
Bill Jenkins, 710 Mathews Street, supported the moratorium as a step toward banning fracking.
Alex Barnett, 1601 Dogwood Court, discussed the nation’s ability to juggle oil and gas exploration
with environmental impacts and public health. He supported the moratorium.
Philip Friedman, 201 South Grant, supported the moratorium and its possible extension.
242
December 18, 2012
Tom Hoehn, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium and requested that Council consider
working with the state to attain the research of independent groups regarding air and water quality
impacts of fracking.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported the moratorium and
thanked Frack Free Fort Collins for its work. He requested that the moratorium be extended to nine
months and requested a charter amendment be placed on the April ballot to ban fracking.
Janice Lynne, Fort Collins resident, discussed air pollution resulting from fracking, supported the
moratorium, and requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking on the April
ballot.
Bernadette Kissel, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern about the potential water use issues
resulting from fracking.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker Street, supported the moratorium.
Lea Pace, 2409 West Mulberry, supported a ban on fracking in Fort Collins.
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road, supported the moratorium.
Marley Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported the moratorium and requested the placement of a charter
amendment to ban fracking on the April ballot.
Matt Martinez, Fort Collins resident, supported the extension of the moratorium to one year and
requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking on the April ballot.
Warren Snyder, 1630 Collindale Drive, supported the extension of the moratorium to one year and
requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking on the April ballot.
Mayah Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking
on the April ballot.
Fred Kirsch, 2248 Shropshire Avenue, Community for Sustainable Energy, requested the placement
of a charter amendment to ban fracking on the April ballot.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset Street, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the
extension of the moratorium to nine months and requested the placement of a charter amendment
to ban fracking on the April ballot.
Paul (last name indiscernible), supported the moratorium and opposed fracking in Fort Collins.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the extension of the moratorium to nine months and
requested the placement of a charter amendment to ban fracking on the April ballot.
City Attorney Roy discussed the revisions made to the Ordinance since First Reading. The period
of the moratorium has been extended to seven months in order to allow the newly seated Council
additional time to consider the issue prior to its first work session on the topic. Additionally, Section
243
December 18, 2012
3 of the Ordinance contains additional language relating to the termination of the moratorium. City
Attorney Roy noted Prospect Energy has submitted for consideration a version of the Ordinance
which excludes certain properties from the application of the moratorium.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the timeline for state regulations. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and
Project Manager, replied the state legislative session lasts until May 9, 2013. The Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission rule-making is set to conclude January 7 or 8, 2013.
City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance already contains a provision that would exempt maintenance
operations at existing oil wells and associated facilities. The proposed addition from Prospect
Energy would exempt certain lands, as described.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 145, 2012, including the extension of the moratorium to seven months, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated the City will work with Prospect Energy to create an operator
agreement during the period of the moratorium and thanked the citizens who have submitted
comments regarding the issue and encouraged them to stay involved in the process. He noted the
majority of developed Fort Collins would not allow oil and gas development given the existing
setback rules.
Councilmember Manvel noted oil and gas extraction is still allowed on open lands and natural areas.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the time table for a charter amendment for the April election.
City Clerk Nelson replied it is not too late to get an amendment on the ballot.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would be supportive of the placement of a charter amendment on
the ballot and would also be supportive of a fracking ban. He encouraged citizens to be mindful of
the Council election in April.
Councilmember Troxell noted Fort Collins has never had an application for oil and gas drilling
within city limits. The existing operation was annexed into the city. He requested regular reports
from staff regarding the state process.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how recently any of the wells within the Growth Management Area
have been fracked. Weinheimer replied the most recent well to have been fracked in the Growth
Management Area was in October.
Councilmember Horak noted the importance of working with the Larimer County Commissioners
regarding regulation and noted the geologic features in this area are different than those in Weld
County.
Councilmember Poppaw supported a ban on fracking.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the moratorium to allow the City to control its own destiny and become
a state leader in terms of regulations.
244
December 18, 2012
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Ordinance No. 153, 2012,
Designating the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins Landmark District,
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Whitcomb Street Historic District contains 14 properties, which, together, form a cohesive
entity associated historically, architecturally, and developmentally with the 100 block of South
Whitcomb Street. The proposed district is generally bound on the north by Mountain Avenue, on
the south by Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west sides. It consists of the twelve properties
that comprise the 100 Block of South Whitcomb Street and two properties historically associated
with the 100 Block of South Whitcomb Street, now addressed as 601 West Mountain Avenue and 612
West Oak Street. The period of significance dates from the oldest construction in 1889, to 1940,
when the newest of the historic dwellings was built on the last subdivided lot, seventy-two years ago.
Owners of ten of the fourteen properties have consented in writing to establishment of the Whitcomb
Street Historic District, desiring to protect their investments from redevelopment activities and to
become eligible for financial programs available to historic properties. Owners of four properties
are in opposition to the district, preferring to not have additional restrictions placed on their
properties, including review of exterior alterations or demolitions.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the April 11, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, Mr. Kevin Murray formally
submitted an application for the Whitcomb Street Historic District, on behalf of himself and other
property owners within the proposed district. Subsequently, the Commission held hearings to
consider the proposed district on August 8, 2012 and on October 10, 2012.
At its October 10, 2012 hearing, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the area
proposed for designation forms a cohesive unit; that a large percentage of the primary historic
resources within the district are contributing to the district; that the district contains a
preponderance of integrity, and that the district is historically and architecturally significant to Fort
Collins under all three Standards. The Commission voted 7-0 to adopt Resolution No. 3, 2012,
recommending that Council approve the designation of the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a
Fort Collins Landmark District.
All of the properties comprising the Whitcomb Street Historic District, with the exception of a new
residence at 122 South Whitcomb Street, currently under construction, qualify for designation under
Standards 1 and 2 (social/developmental history and significant people). Under Standard 3
245
December 18, 2012
(architecture), all of the properties qualify except for 122 South Whitcomb and the dwelling at 113
South Whitcomb Street, significantly altered through a pop-up addition circa 1994.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Recognition of the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins Landmark District enables
owners of the thirteen contributing properties to qualify for federal, state and local incentive
programs available only to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by
Clarion Associates, and the experience of the Sheely Drive Historic Landmark District, it is likely
that all property owners, including the owners of the new residence at 122 South Whitcomb Street,
would see an increase in property value following landmark district designation. Clarion Associates
attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the
perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized
historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers.”
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed the boundaries and period of
significance of the Whitcomb Street Historic District. Certain properties in the area will not be
included in the District. There are other Historic Districts within the city. She showed photos of
the properties to be included in the District and discussed the benefits of historic designation. wners
of ten of the fourteen homes to be placed in the District approve of the creation of the Historic
District. Owners of four properties are in opposition to the creation of the District and are opposed
particularly to the requirement that exterior renovations be approved. McWilliams presented the
Landmark Preservation Commission’s findings.
Kevin Murray, 117 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Lane Kaley, 118 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Virginia Cross, 129 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Walter Hickman spoke on behalf of his father, Scott Hickman, 112 South Whitcomb, and opposed
the creation of the Historic District.
John Volkins, 126 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Dan Manier, 125 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Bill Whitley, 1402 Waxwing Lane, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Veronica Lim, 108 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Suzanne Murray, 117 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Heather Manier, 125 South Whitcomb, supported the creation of the Historic District.
Dave Costlow, 121 South Whitcomb, opposed the creation of the Historic District.
246
December 18, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat asked why a property owner would not want to be part of a Historic District.
McWilliams replied historic landmark designation requires the review of any exterior renovations
to the property, per the Secretary of the Interior standards. Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community
Development and Neighborhood Services, noted the homeowner is unable to make a change if it
does not meet those standards. Additionally, the District requirements would need to meet historic
standards, as well.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the decision maker for individually-eligible properties and
contributing versus non-contributing properties. McWilliams replied staff makes a recommendation
as to whether or not a property is individually eligible, contributing, or not contributing. to a District.
That information is acted upon by the Landmark Preservation Commission which creates a formal
Resolution to come before Council.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the zoning of the neighborhood. McWilliams replied the
neighborhood is in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the financial benefits of historic
designation. McWilliams replied residential property owners can take advantage of twenty percent
state tax credits, zero interest rehabilitation loans annually of up to $7,500 of City funds that are
matching the property owners’ funds, and design assistance program funds of $2,000 per property
per year. Additionally, staff assists with applications for state tax credits.
Councilmember Troxell asked who prepared the document for the Landmark District designation.
McWilliams replied the application submitted to the Landmark Preservation Commission was
initially prepared by members of the neighborhood, primarily by Kevin Murray. Staff then prepared
supplemental research and assessments.
Councilmember Troxell asked if third party validation exists. McWilliams replied verification
comes from professional staff with experience in this type of research.
Councilmember Troxell asked about standards for landmark designation. McWilliams replied there
are four standards for landmark designation in Fort Collins which mirror the national standards. One
is architecture, a standard which twelve of the fourteen Whitcomb properties meet. The second is
community development and broad patterns of development. Thirteen of the properties meet that
standard, and thirteen of the properties meet the third standard for associated history.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the property selection. McWilliams replied the only property
excluded from the proposed district, per the application, is the property at 529 West Mountain
Avenue, which was at one time addressed on Whitcomb, but was built later than the rest of the
Whitcomb Street properties and in a completely different architectural style. That property is also
on the very edge of the proposed district.
Kadrich noted national standards do not allow gaps or holes within a District; therefore, the four
objecting property owners cannot be excluded.
Councilmember Troxell asked what constitutes continuity within the proposed District. McWilliams
replied the block of homes have similar styles, though each has had some changes.
247
December 18, 2012
Councilmember Troxell requested photos of each home and a larger map of the area prior to Second
Reading. He argued the point has yet to be made as to why this area should be a Historic District.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 153, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated there is plenty of proof as to why this should be designated as
historic. He noted this designation would not freeze the area and disallow renovations.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with Councilmember Troxell regarding the graphics in the
presentation. He stated he would support the motion and commended the neighbors for their efforts
with the application. He stated Nancy York is a current community member of significance.
Councilmember Horak asked about the alternatives for individual designation versus district
designation and asked about size requirements for a District.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the history of the Laurel School Historic District.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed concern that the block does not represent an entire District. She stated
she would like to have all of the neighbors in agreement; however, stated she would support the
motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted individual designations would still allow for properties in the area to
be scraped and rebuilt in a fashion not consistent with the area.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 154, 2012,
Amending Article IV of Chapter 15 of the City Code relating
to Door-to-Door Solicitation, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 060, 2011, which took effect on May 27, 2011. It established
a permit system regulating residential door-to door solicitation. The City's goal in regulating door-
to-door solicitation was to help protect the safety and privacy of residents in their dwellings. Since
implementing the permit system, staff has identified certain changes that they recommend be made
to the provisions to ensure that the permit system is working properly and effectively, and also to
allow staff to respond quickly and efficiently to violations of the Ordinance.
248
December 18, 2012
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2011, the “Green River Ordinance” was replaced to bring the City's regulations more in line with
the approach that many other Colorado cities had taken regarding residential solicitation. From
an administrative perspective, the first year of the ordinance has proceeded fairly smoothly.
However, certain aspects surrounding an out-of-state solicitation vendor in the summer of 2012
raised questions about the ordinance.
Under the Ordinance, residents have the following options for dealing with solicitors at their door:
• Post a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign, which prohibits all door-to-door
solicitation whether commercial or non-commercial.
• Complete the online no-solicitation form, which prohibits commercial solicitations only.
• Take no action, which allows all commercial and non-commercial solicitation.
The following are the Sales Tax Office and Police Services statistics to date:
• 4,439 households have signed up online for the no-solicitation list.
• 44 companies have been issued two-year permits to solicit in the City of Fort Collins. Of the
44 companies, 7 have out-of-state addresses.
Licensing and Citation Statistics 2011 2012 YTD
Number of Calls to
Police Services
97* 114*
Total Citations Issued 17 22
Number of Repeat Offenders
(Issued 2 citations)
1 1
Number of Citations Issued to Solicitors with a
Permit
4** 4***
Number of Badges Suspended or Revoked 2 6
Number of Permits Suspended or Revoked 0 1
*The remaining calls were closed under the following circumstances: unable to
locate; unfounded; warning; gone on arrival.
**The badges in connection with 2 of these citations were suspended.
***The permit and badges in connection with all 4 citations were revoked.
There are currently three kinds of remedies available to the City for violation of the Ordinance:
• Suspension or revocation of the identification badge of individual solicitors.
• Suspension, revocation, or non-renewal of the permit; and/or
• Criminal prosecution of the solicitor(s) and/or permit holder.
Staff has met to discuss the Solicitation Ordinance and is recommending the following process
improvements:
• A weekly report will be generated by Police Services itemizing all solicitation calls that will
be sent directly to the Sales Tax office, along with copies of all police reports and citations
issued will be sent to Sales Tax for monitoring of repeat offenders.
249
December 18, 2012
• The Sales Tax office will review the reports when received and take appropriate actions to
warn, suspend, or revoke the permit holders. This process will foster better communication
between staff at the Sales Tax Office and Police Services, and facilitate a quicker response
time to handle violations.
• Tighter policies and procedures should be put in place, including criteria to determine how
and when a permit or badge holder will be suspended or revoked.
The criteria in the policies and procedures used to determine if a violation warrants a suspension
or revocation will include the following:
• Inadvertently vs. knowingly violating the Ordinance
• Repeated violations
• Prior warnings
• Any threatening, harassing or intimidating behavior
• Misrepresentation
• Likelihood of future violations
In addition, staff is making the following recommendations to amend the Ordinance:
• Clarify that the owners of multi-family dwellings and other buildings housing multiple
occupants may post a sign prohibiting solicitation on behalf of all such occupants.
• Authorize the Financial Officer to suspend a badge and/or permit.
• Require those that supervise solicitors to complete a criminal background check.
• Incorporate more clearly defined due process requirements.
• Limit the requisite criminal background check to the ten (10) years immediately preceding
the permit application.
• Eliminate the current requirement of a sales tax deposit.
• Add a misdemeanor offense for displaying a badge unlawfully after suspension or
revocation.
• Add a provision requiring a $50 deposit for a badge, to be refunded at the expiration of the
term of the badge or upon revocation or voluntary relinquishment.
In addition to proposing these Code amendments, management staff will be working with the City
Attorney’s Office to review and possibly revise prosecution policies.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On December 5, 2012, staff issued a letter to all permitted solicitation vendors notifying them of the
proposed changes to the City’s door-to-door solicitation ordinance.
In the spring of 2013, staff will initiate an outreach campaign which will educate citizens on the
requirement to update their inclusion on the no-solicitation list which will expire on the two- year
anniversary of the ordinance in May of 2013. The outreach will also educate citizens about the
pending updates to the ordinance and provide a refresher on the methods to stop solicitors from
knocking on their door. “
250
December 18, 2012
Jessica Ping-Small, Sales Tax Manager, discussed the history of the solicitation ordinance within
the City and discussed violations of the existing permit-system solicitation ordinance. Staff is
recommending that supervisors of solicitors be required to get a background check and that all
background checks be limited to the previous ten years. Staff is also recommending that repeat
violators, who have previously lost a badge, receive a misdemeanor offense. Additionally, staff is
recommending a $50 deposit per solicitor badge. Policy improvements include regular
communication with Police Services.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, stated citizens do not know who to call regarding a violation. He
suggested a clarification regarding the placement of handbills on doors and approaching
homeowners outside homes.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, requested additional clarification as to why there is a
distinction made between multi-family and single-family units in this Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the seemingly low number of recent complaints. Ping-Small
replied current complaints are immediately transferred to Police Services in order to track each call;
therefore the number is believed to be accurate.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the difference between a single-family and multi-family
residences. City Attorney Roy replied the Ordinance that banned solicitation meant the government
was making the choice for the property owner. From a policy standpoint, if Council prefers to allow
each tenant to make a choice, that alternative can be examined.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he has not heard of any issues with multi-family posting. City
Attorney Roy replied this is not a change in law or a change in enforcement practices from the way
in which it has been interpreted and applied historically. This clarification came from a citizen
inquiry as to how the phrase “at or near the entrance to the premises” was interpreted. Staff made
the decision to interpret the phrase to be consistent with past practices.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if all entrances at each complex will be posted. Ping-Small replied
the Ordinance specifically says “at or near all entrances to such a building that face a public street
or right-of-way, and thereby prohibit solicitation at any dwelling unit contained in such building.”
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 154, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion, but would like additional information
regarding the multi-family dwelling issue prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion as he does not support the ability
of one entity to make the decision for many multi-family units.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would not support the motion for the same reason.
251
December 18, 2012
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to amend the motion
to remove the multi-family provision.
City Attorney Roy requested the latitude to examine the issue prior to Second Reading.
The vote on the motion to modify the Ordinance to remove the multi-family provision was as
follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the changes to the Ordinance.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 155, 2012,
Amending Section 2-483 of the City Code So as to Make the Conflict of
Interest Provisions Contained in Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter
Applicable to the Members of the Board of Commissioners of the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code so that the ethical rules that apply to the City Council
will also apply to the URA Board of Commissioners. The City Council Ethics Review Board has
recommended this change since, in Fort Collins, the URA Board consists of the members of the City
Council itself.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter contains certain conflict of interest rules that apply to all
officers and employees of the City. Under those rules, an “officer or employee” of the City is defined
as “any person holding a position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the city,
whether part-time or full-time, including a member of any authority, board, committee or
commission of the city, other than an authority that is: (1) established under the provisions of the
Colorado Revised Statutes; (2) governed by state statutory rules of ethical conduct; and (3)
expressly exempted from (the Charter conflict of interest provisions) by ordinance of the Council.”
The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) has been established by the City Council under
the provisions contained in Title 31, Article 25, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The
statutory ethical rules that apply to officers and employees of URAs are different than those
contained in the Charter. Because City Code Section 2-483 presently exempts the URA from the
provisions of Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter, the state statutory rules, rather than Charter
conflict of interest rules, apply to the officers are employees of the URA.
252
December 18, 2012
The state statutory conflict of interest rule most directly applicable to the URA is the rule contained
in C.R.S. § 31-25-104(3), which prohibits commissioners and other officers and employees of
authorities and their immediate family members from acquiring any interest in any project or in any
property included or planned to be included in any project, or from having any interest, direct or
indirect, in any contract for materials or services to be furnished or used in connection with any
project. This state ethical rule is less restrictive than the conflict of interest rules contained in the
Charter, in that the Charter rules not only prohibit officers and employees of the City from having
any financial interest in decisions that may come before them but also from having any “personal
interest” in such decision, as that term is defined in the Charter.
Under state law, an authority may either be comprised of the members of the governing body that
create the authority or of other appointed members. In Fort Collins, the URA Board consists of the
Council itself.
The City Council Ethics Review Board, which is authorized under City Code Section 2-569(c)(4)
to propose any revisions to the City rules of ethical conduct, has recommended that, in view of the
fact that the City Council has designated itself as the board of commissioners of the Authority, the
City Code should be amended so as to apply the same ethical rules of conduct to the Authority as
apply to the Council. The ordinance would make that change.”
City Attorney Roy stated the City Charter conflict of interest rules exclude the members of an
Authority of the City, if the Authority was established by the City under state law, if state law
establishes its own conflict of interest or ethical rules for that Authority, and if the City Code
specifically exempts the Authority from the Charter conflict of interest rules. At this point, all of
those conditions are true for all of the Authorities established by the City. The Urban Renewal
Authority Board consists of the City Councilmembers. The Council Ethics Review Board has
recommended that the Code be modified to eliminate the exemption of the Urban Renewal Authority
Boardmembers from the Charter ethical rules.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is conflict of interest language in the state
statutes that embodies Urban Renewal Authorities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 155, 2012, on First Reading.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion as the URA should be differentiated per
state statute.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-122
Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation
No. 2012-3 of the Ethics Review Board, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
253
December 18, 2012
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On December 7, 2012, the Ethics Review Board
met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Mayor Weitkunat and
Councilmember Manvel. The question submitted is whether, in the Board’s opinion, either of them
has a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of the City Council regarding the
possible redevelopment of the Link-n-Greens property by Woodward, Inc. The Mayor and
Councilmember Manvel presented the question because of the proximity of their respective
businesses to the redevelopment site. As required by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion
and recommendation to the full Council for its consideration. The Board opinion indicates that
neither Mayor Weitkunat or Councilmember Manvel has a conflict of interest in this situation.
Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s
opinion and recommendation.”
Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Manvel recused themselves from the discussion of this item
due to potential conflicts of interest.
City Attorney Roy discussed the inquiries submitted by Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember
Manvel.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-122.
Councilmember Horak noted the properties in question, owned by Mayor Weitkunat and
Councilmember Manvel, were deemed to be outside the area of influence of this potential
redevelopment as they are on the south side of Riverside Avenue.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 146, 2012,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review
of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City
Manager at $207,063.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Ordinance, stating City Manager Atteberry, as
the Director of the Urban Renewal Authority, is pledging millions of dollars of tax increment funds
to a private entity.
254
December 18, 2012
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 146, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 147, 2012,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review
of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City
Attorney at $170,662. “
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Ordinance, citing the lack of a redevelopment
agreement made with the Rocky Mountain Innosphere.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 147, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked City Manager Atteberry and City Attorney Roy for their service
to the community.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-119
Adopting an Updated City Investment Policy, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Interagency Loan Program is to support City services, missions, and values by
making loans to outside entities such as the Urban Renewal Authority and the Downtown
Development Authority while maintaining an adequate rate or return for the City.
The 2012 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
1. A Purpose Statement was added to the Inter-agency Loan Program
2. The name changed from Inter-fund Borrowing Program to Inter-agency Loan Program
3. The loan must be evidenced by a promissory note
255
December 18, 2012
4. The interest rate is the higher of Municipal Bonds or Treasury Bill rate plus 0.5%
5. A nexus is not required for utility funds
6. Approval from oversight board is required
7. Maximum loan term is 25 years
8. Restrictions on total loans made to Governmental and Enterprise funds.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Inter-fund Borrowing Program was originally adopted in 2008 by Resolution 2008-121.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The updated policy will address guideline changes for how the City address the financing needs of
related entities that are supported by the City but do not possess the financial strength of the City
of Fort Collins. In challenging financial markets, the Inter-agency Loan Program may also enhance
the yield the City earns on its investment portfolio.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The City Council Audit and Finance Committee reviewed this policy on October 15, 2012.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated approved agreements should be executed.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-119.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for the updates.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the Finance Committee approved these changes.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that the Council
cancel the January 1, 2013 City Council meeting which, under Section 2-28(a) of the City Code,
would need to be held the preceding night, which is New Year’s Eve, if it were not cancelled. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
256
by the City
- A traffic impact analysis shall be submitted; all street frontage shall be
improved in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards, including street trees, sidewalk, curb and gutter
- Transportation fees and securities, i.e., bond or letter of credit, provided to
ensure no damage to City streets, including any access routes
Lighting Except during drilling, completion or other activities where worker safety is
a concern, all lighting shall be fully shielded and not spill off the site
Spills Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with local,
state, and federal laws
Chemical
Disclosure
All Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be provided to the City and
Emergency Personnel
Noise Use an acoustically insulated cover to enclose the motor or engine
All production equipment used shall comply with the noise levels in our
Municipal Code in residential zones
212
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
air quality
Baseline and well completion
monitoring required, and
additional post-completion
testing may be required if
changes in air quality are
identified
Baseline and well
completion monitoring
required, and additional
post-completion testing
may be required if
changes in air quality are
identified
Water Quality
Water Quality
Monitoring Plan
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
Baseline monitoring within ½
mile:
-Sample four sites
-Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down gradient
Baseline monitoring
within ½ mile:
-Sample four sites
-Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down
gradient
Conduct
Subsequent
Monitoring
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
Monitor at same locations 1, 3,
and 6 years after well
completion
Monitor at same locations
1, 3, and 6 years after well
completion
211