HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/16/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAPage 1
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
August 16, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring Fridays of Each Work Week this School Year as “Get Your Green On” Days.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
Page 2
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (limited to 30 minutes)
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 22. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Item No. 30, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
6. Consideration and approval of the minutes from the July 5 and July 19, 2011 Regular Meetings and
the July 26 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of
Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26
of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain Definitions
Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code
and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution
System.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor revisions to
the definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and the
Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of General Manager, clarification
regarding the provision of net metering service and clarification regarding authority to execute
interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City. Light and Power is also
recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements
contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other
requirements for interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves for
the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank Program.
All of the authorized expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for which the dollars
were originally appropriated could not be completed during 2010. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, reappropriates $295,821 and is necessary for completion
of the projects in 2011. These unexpended monies lapsed into the General Fund balance at the end
of 2010 and reflect no change in Council policies.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields Street Bridge
Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, appropriates fund from
three grants received from the federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling
$2,225,932. This funding contract between the City and Colorado Department of Transportation is
for the replacement of two structurally deficient bridges owned by the City. The two bridges are
Shields Street Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, near Rolland Moore Park, and Laporte Avenue
Bridge over the Arthur Ditch, between Shields Street and College Avenue.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase
Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to
20 Years.
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a portion of
electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will design, construct,
operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on July 26, 2011, allows for a 20-year contract between the system developer and
the City.
11. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating
City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the
Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Programs, and the City’s Human Services Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment
Partnerships Fund.
Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Ordinance No. 097, 2011, appropriates the
City’s FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Both Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011.
Page 4
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from
the Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services Fund for the Art in Public Places
Program.
This Ordinance appropriates $17,998 for administration, design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with Fort Collins artist Susan Dailey, to create up to twelve granite pavers
to be integrated into the streetscape of the Linden Street Streetscape Project.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural
Services Fund and in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation
Project.
The Lincoln Center Renovation project is funded primarily through the Building on Basics capital tax
approved by voters in 2005. Unanticipated grant and donation revenue will be used to complete the
full scope of the estimated $8.2 million project. Approximately $5.5 million has been appropriated
from the Building on Basics tax and $2.6 million from unanticipated grant revenue and prior year
reserves in the Cultural Services and General Funds.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services
Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
The Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, has provided funds, currently held in the
Capital Projects Fund, in the amount of $738,034 in support of the Exhibits for the new Fort Collins
Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility project. Also, $100,000 from the Fort Collins
Museum Donation Reserves are being provided to support the Exhibits. Additionally, an estate gift
in the amount of $150 has been provided.
15. Items Relating to the South Transit Center Park and Ride Project.
A. Resolution 2011-068 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the Colorado
Department of Transportation for the Construction of the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
City staff applied to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Senate Bill 1 funding for
one project that included the South Transit Center (STC) and an adjacent park and ride facility. In
2009, CDOT approved funding for the STC, but did not fund the park and ride. A 2010 CDOT grant
subsequently approved the necessary funding to build the adjacent park and ride facility. Previous
Council action approved the contract for construction of the STC facility; this Resolution executes the
contract for the park and ride only.
The South Transit Center (STC) Park and Ride will serve as Transfort’s first Park and Ride facility.
The STC Park and Ride will serve a wide range of users with 170 public parking stalls providing
access to the Mason Trail and Transfort bus service. The STC Park and Ride will also serve the
regional FLEX service and the Mason Bus Rapid Transit system known as MAX. These state funds
will be used as local match to the Federal Transit Administration funds for the overall Mason Corridor
Project.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the
Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Division has received a $99,800 federal grant through
the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2011-12 Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Page 5
program. This funding will allow the City of Fort Collins’ Safe Routes to School Program
(administered and staffed by the Transportation Planning Division) to provide pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in the
General Fund for Police Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating Budget.
A grant in the amount of $45,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
(DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative
Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative
Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative
method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the offender, the
victim/victim representative and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime,
and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal
Justice Officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and
concerns of the victims and affected community will be addressed. An $8,700 cash match is required
and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for Restorative
Justice Services. Total required match is 25% so an additional $6,300 in-kind match was included in
the grant application from the Eighth Judicial District Probation Department. The grant period is from
July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A,
in the Maximum Aggregate Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the Stormwater Utility Fund.
This Ordinance appropriates $8,750,000 to pay off the 2002 Storm Drainage Revenue bonds. The
funding source is the proceeds from the 2011A Storm Drainage refunding bonds. Market conditions
are such that they can be refinanced at lower interest rates, resulting in an estimated net present
value savings of $500,000.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the
Compensation of Councilmembers.
This Ordinance repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This section is
unnecessary because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such
adjustment is accomplished through administrative action of the City Manager.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City Property
to the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company.
Arapaho Bend Natural Area is located along the Cache la Poudre River near I-25 and East Harmony
Road. The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) owns property immediately to the south
of the portion of Arapaho Bend that lies east of I-25. A wire fence separates the two properties. A
recent boundary survey revealed the fence separating the two properties was located slightly north
of the described property line. The fence has been in place for greater than 18 years and has been
recognized by the Natural Areas Program (NAP) and LPAC as the boundary of the Natural Area since
the property was purchased in 2000. The strip of property between the fence and the described
boundary line contains 0.703 acres. City staff determined that it was necessary to explore options
for cleaning up the boundary issue to ensure clear boundary lines for future access, maintenance and
use of the sites for both the NAP and LPAC. After meeting with LPAC on site and commissioning a
survey of the boundary and fence lines, City staff proposed that this narrow strip of land described
as City property be conveyed to LPAC in exchange for an access easement across the LPAC
property and LPAC agreed. The current access to this portion of Arapaho Bend is limited and unsafe,
with NAP staff accessing the natural area via the I-25 right of way. The access easement across the
LPAC property will provide safe and permanent access for NAP staff.
Page 6
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2011, Authorizing a Grazing Lease on the Vangbo Property to
Alison Person.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program (NAP) purchased the Vangbo Property in 2005. At
the time of purchase, the property was leased by the Person family as pasture for horses boarded at
Mountain View Stables, a local business also owned by the Persons. This lease is now expired and
NAP is requesting authorization to enter into a new lease for a period not to exceed five years. This
lease will generate $9,000 the first year, $12,000 the second, and $15,000 the third year. Should the
lease extend to the fourth and fifth year, the rent will be adjusted based on the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley CPI-U.
22. Resolution 2011-069 Appointing Two Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League Policy
Committee.
Appointments to the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Policy Committee are made each fall and
members serve for a one-year period from September through August. Each member municipality
of the League is entitled to a representative, and all cities over 100,000 are entitled to designate two
representatives.
The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the
League Executive Board, positions of support, opposition, no position or amendment to a wide variety
of legislation affecting cities and towns. At each annual conference in June, the Policy Committee
proposes to the membership, revisions to the League’s policies which guide League positions on
public policy issues affecting municipalities.
The Committee meets three or four times a year, before and during legislative sessions as well as in
May prior to the annual conference. CML has asked that representatives be appointed by the end
of July and has been notified that a resolution appointing Fort Collins’ two representatives is
scheduled to be considered on August 16. The first CML Policy Committee meeting will be held on
Thursday, October 6.
This Resolution appoints one Councilmember, to be selected at this meeting, and City Manager Darin
Atteberry to represent the City of Fort Collins on the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee.
END CONSENT
23. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
24. Staff Reports.
25. Councilmember Reports.
Page 7
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
25A. Reconsideration of a Motion Adopted by Council at a Special Meeting Held on Thursday, August 11,
2011, Expressing the City’s Objections to Construction on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation
to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line Project and Authorizing the City Attorney to Seek a Court
Order Enjoining Construction of Phase III, if Necessary, or To Take Such Other Appropriate Legal
Action As May Be Needed to Protect the Interests of the City.
26. Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers,
Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing
Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits. (staff: Wanda Krajicek; 5 minute staff presentation;
45 minute discussion)
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance that Would Prohibit the Operation
of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical
Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits.
(No Action Needed)
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2011, an Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation
of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical
Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits.
(Option 1)
OR
Resolution 2011-070 Submitting a Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate
Limits at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 1, 2011, In Conjunction with
the Larimer County Coordinated Election. (Option 2)
Page 8
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on July 19, 2011, which has been determined to
contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered electors
of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an initiative
petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either (1) adopt the proposed
ordinance without alteration within 30 days (Option 1); or (2) submit such proposed measure, in the
form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city (Option 2). If the Council chooses to submit
the proposed measure to the voters, Resolution 2011-070 would submit the measure and establish
the ballot language for the measure.
27. Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill
Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the
June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Amended CSURF
Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan. (staff: Steve Olt; 10 minute staff
presentation; 3.5 hour discussion)
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP).
The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The Amended ODP was
approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA and Hillpond on Spring Creek have appealed the Board’s
decisions. The allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
28. Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill
Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the
June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve The Grove at Fort Collins,
Project Development Plan. (staff: Steve Olt; 10 minute staff presentation; 3.5 hour discussion)
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek
HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA
and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the Board’s decision. The allegation is that the
Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and
Charter.
29. First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of
Chapter 2 of the City Code Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy Board. (staff:
Brian Janonis; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion)
Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on the community’s ability to respond
to changing conditions in the future. Council needs visionary and innovative advice regarding the
community’s energy future as it relates to the Plan Fort Collins goals for a sustainable community.
Council is in need of advice from subject matter experts, not just in the electric engineering field, but
also other experts who are knowledgeable about such things as to how the electrification of
transportation impacts carbon emissions and energy consumption. To this end, an Energy Board is
being created to replace the Electric Board. The purpose of the Energy Board will be to take a
systems approach to the City’s energy future looking out 10 years and beyond and to advise Council
on such matters.
30. Pulled Consent Items.
31. Other Business.
32. Adjournment.
Page 9
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Colorado State University and the City of Fort Collins seek to celebrate and
promote the traditions and spirit that make the college experience at the University great and unique;
and
WHEREAS the City recognizes that the primary colors of green and gold and the
University’s insignias are symbolic representations of the traditions and spirit of the educational
mission and experience at the University; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins community is proud of Colorado State University’s
educational mission and experience and the colors and insignias that symbolize them; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the University’s colors and insignias play a
fundamental role in their efforts to promote and market the educational experience at the University
by reinforcing its mission and messages; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the wearing of apparel bearing the institution’s
approved insignias encourages solidarity among its diverse constituencies and will strengthen the
spirit of cooperation within the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim
Friday of each and every work week this school year as
“GET YOUR GREEN ON”
and encourage all supporters to wear apparel bearing the colors and/or insignias of the University
on these days.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the July 5 and July 19, 2011, Regular Meetings and the July 26, 2011
Adjourned Meeting.
July 5, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 5, 2011, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by
the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the funding source for Item No. 11, Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 075, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing
a Second Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the North College Marketplace
Project, has been changed from the General Fund Reserve to the Water Fund since First Reading.
Council has received a revised version of Item No. 28, Resolution 2011-057 Establishing a Process
for Enhancing Communication Between the City Council and the Council-Appointed Platte River
Power Authority Board Member.
Citizen Participation
Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, discussed Character Fort Collins and
its relationship with the City. She urged Council to waive attorney-client privilege with regard to
the report written by the attorney hired to investigate the relationship.
Andrea Agnew, Stonecrest Drive, discussed the exoneration of Tim Masters and showed a video
regarding the issue.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the Tim Masters case and opposed Police Services’
handling of the issue.
Ken Correia, 327 Brinn Court, requested an emergency vote regarding interim licenses for medical
marijuana infused product businesses.
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, discussed constitutionalism.
Ellen Thompson, Fort Collins resident, continued Ms. Lynne’s statement regarding
constitutionalism.
Amish Patel, 1303 Sunflower, supported mobile vendors in the City and encouraged Council to
begin regulating and supporting the food truck culture.
356
July 5, 2011
Josh Kerson, 2814 West Vine Drive, supported the use of electric bicycles on the City’s multi-use
trails.
Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, discussed the Smart Meter program and asked for additional
data regarding the benefits of Smart Meters.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding the Development Review appeal
process.
Terri Williams, 2018 Niagra Court, opposed the Smart Meter program.
Virginia Farver, 1214 Bellview Drive, opposed the Smart Meter program.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, opposed various City expenditures.
Rosemary VanGorder, 3508 Shore Road, expressed concern regarding the criminal justice system
and the School Resource Officer program.
Mel Hilgenburg, 172 North College, thanked the City for the Fourth of July celebration and
discussed the location of the Greeley/Bellvue pipeline. He requested safety signage on multi-use
trails.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Horak rebutted Mr. Lockhart’s comments regarding votes.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for more information regarding food trucks and suggested changing
the 4 inch width language on the electric bicycle regulations. She asked for information regarding
medical marijuana infused products. City Attorney Roy replied there is no prohibition against
medical marijuana centers dispensing edibles; however, the ability to manufacture edibles in Fort
Collins has been affected by state law. He stated staff would determine the State’s position and
report back to Council as soon as possible.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the Poudre Valley Health Systems contribution for the Fourth
of July celebration. City Manager Atteberry replied PVHS has been sponsoring the event for the
past several years and the amount was between $25,000 and $40,000.
Councilmember Troxell asked for further information regarding mobile food vendors.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson rebutted Mr. Lockhart’s comments as being inaccurate.
Mayor Weitkunat noted a work session regarding the Smart Meter program will occur following the
URA meeting this evening. She asked for a response regarding the development review appeal
process. City Attorney Roy replied the City Code does not speak to the role of the staff report; staff
typically provides an analysis of the allegations in the notice of appeal. All parties-in-interest are
357
July 5, 2011
given the opportunity to respond to the staff report at the appeal hearing. Council has the
prerogative to change staff’s role to simply being available for questions rather than provide a staff
report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 7, 2011, Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming
Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, appropriates
unanticipated Cultural Development and Programming (“CDP”) revenue and prior year
reserves for the CDP accounts and prior year reserves for the Convention and Visitors
Bureau. Lodging tax revenues in 2010 were $22,252 short of revenue projections; however,
there are Lodging tax reserves from unspent appropriations in the amount of $113,066
available to be appropriated in the General Fund. In addition, $2,800 of unanticipated CDP
revenue was received in 2011 which will be appropriated into the Cultural Development and
Programming accounts.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Larimer
County of a Permanent Non-Exclusive Storm Drainage Easement on City Wastewater Utility
Property Including a Portion of Prospect Ponds Natural Area.
Larimer County has a current construction project at the Larimer County Detention Center
Campus, located on Midpoint Drive. This project includes an Alternative Sentencing
Division building, an addition to the existing Sheriff’s Administration building, and an
addition to the existing Community Corrections Facility. In addition, there will be parking
lot modifications and site improvements. With these changes, the project will include an on-
site detention pond. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7,
2011, will grant a permanent utility easement for a 30-inch underground stormwater pipe to
convey the detained runoff to Skunk Pond, which is part of Prospect Ponds Natural Area.
9. Items Relating to Approval and Appropriation of Two Real Property Land Donations to the
Natural Areas Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2011, Authorizing the Acceptance of a
Donation of 1.75 Acres From Larimer County and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2011, Authorizing the Acceptance of a
Donation of Three Acres from Mike Sollenberger and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
358
July 5, 2011
Ordinance No. 068, 2011, authorizes the donation of a 1.75 acre parcel along the Poudre
River from Larimer County to the City Natural Areas Program. The property is located
adjacent to the north end of Arapaho Bend Natural Area.
Ordinance No. 069, 2011 authorizes the donation of a three acre parcel located adjacent to
Running Deer Natural Area, south of East Prospect Road, from Mike Sollenberger to the
City Natural Areas Program. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading
on June 7, 2011.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2011, Appropriating Funds From the City’s General
Fund Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of
Providing a Loan for the Kaufman and Robinson, Inc. Project at 1330 Blue Spruce.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, authorizes a loan
from the City to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to reimburse Kaufman and Robinson,
Inc for the public improvements associated with building a new location at 1330 Blue Spruce
Drive. Offsetting these costs allowed the retention and expansion of a locally owned
business to be economically feasible. The total cost of this Project was $192,891. The
requested loan amount from the City of Fort Collins General Fund Reserves to the URA will
be $192,891. The URA will utilize the City’s Interfund Borrowing program that was
formally added to the City’s investment policies in 2008. This program enables the City to
use a portion of its investment portfolio to assist City Departments and related entities (e.g.,
the URA) to access funds at a competitive interest rate while still providing a market based
yield to the City investment portfolio.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Second Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority for the North College Marketplace Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, authorizes a loan
in the amount of $3 million from the City to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to fulfill
the remaining reimbursement obligation for the North College Marketplace granted by the
URA Board in September 2008. The first appropriation for $5 million was received in April
2009 for Off Site Street Infrastructure, Wetlands Mitigation, and Demolition/Site
Preparation. The requested loan amount from the City of Fort Collins’ Water Fund
Reserves to the URA will be $3 million and reimbursed to the project for the On-Site public
improvements. Staff originally intended to request the funds from the City’s General Fund
reserves however, after discussions with the Finance department, Utilities and the Attorney’s
office, the request changed to the Utilities Water Fund reserves to ensure the URA was not
overburdening the General Fund reserves.
Utilities anticipates that significant capital project needs in the future and ongoing systemic
adjustment of Water Utility revenues and operating costs may necessitate water rate
increases in the future. The proposed loan of Water Fund reserves is not expected to create
additional need for rate increases or to cause the reserves to fall below required levels,
359
July 5, 2011
assuming that staff-projected rate increases are implemented. The Ordinance provides that
it is the Council’s intent that in the event that unexpected capital projects needs or timing
results in an increased need for reserves in the Water Fund, the Council would provide
replacement funds in order to repay the loan to the Water Fund to meet that need It is
anticipated that the URA will issue bonds within the next few years, and in that event, the
loan from the Water Fund would be repaid at that time.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority provides funds to the Fort Collins Police Services
to be used for equipment and training to process E911 calls. This Ordinance appropriates
those funds.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
This Ordinance appropriates capital project funding for the Utilities to relocate existing
electric, water and wastewater facilities to accommodate the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Project. Light and Power will also supply power to the bus stations along the
corridor. The Utilities are being viewed by the MAX/BRT Project as independent
contractors and will be reimbursed by the MAX/BRT Project funds for the relocation
expenses upon completion. The MAX/BRT Project will also pay for the cost of electric
power supply to the bus stations. The Ordinance provides new capital appropriations in the
Light Power Fund ($620,000), Water Fund ($625,000) and Wastewater Fund ($1,150,000)
for the relocation work. Following completion of the construction, the Utilities will invoice
the MAX/BRT Project based on actual costs and will receive the unanticipated revenue
being appropriated by the Ordinance.
In addition to electric duct bank relocation, Light and Power will use this opportunity to
upgrade the capacity of the duct bank. These system upgrade costs have been budgeted in
Light and Power’s existing 2011 lapsing appropriation. The Ordinance transfers $400,000
of the existing Light and Power lapsing budget into the new BRT electric relocation/upgrade
capital project. The costs of the upgrade will not be reimbursed by the MAX/BRT Corridor
Project.
14. Items Relating to the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
A. Resolution 2011-053 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Grant Agreement
with Great Outdoors Colorado for Funds for a Disc Golf Course at Hughes Stadium.
360
July 5, 2011
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and
Other Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf
Course.
Great Outdoors Colorado has awarded the City an $85,000 grant for the completion of the
Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course. The project involves the development of an 18-hole disc
golf course at Hughes Stadium in conjunction with Colorado State University. The course
is primarily located in the stormwater detention basin directly west of Overland Trail Road.
The course will include new trees and shrubs, a new access road off County Road No. 42C,
and the course tee areas and baskets.
15. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain
Definitions Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City
Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System
The Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Department is proposing minor revisions to the
definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and
the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of General Manager,
clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and clarification regarding
authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City.
Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s
indemnification and insurance requirements contained in the City’s Interconnection
Standards. These standards govern operational and other requirements for interconnection
generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held
in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
This Ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the
November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election, and preserves the opportunity for
Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to
place any measures on the ballot it would need to do so no later than at its August 16
meeting. If Council does not take action by ordinance or resolution before the statutory
deadline (September 2) to certify ballot language to Larimer County, the election will be
cancelled and the provisions of this Ordinance will be of no further force and effect.
361
July 5, 2011
This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 1, 2011 ballot.
However, a group of citizens is currently circulating an initiative petition proposing a
prohibition on the establishment, operation or licensing of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product
manufacturing within the city of Fort Collins. The deadline to submit the petition to the City
Clerk’s Office is July 19, 2011. Adoption of this Ordinance is a required step in preserving
the option for City Council to submit the initiated ordinance, and/or any other ballot
measures that Council may desire, at the November 1, 2011 Coordinated Election.
17. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. First Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of Access
Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
To complete the process of improving Rawhide Flats Road, the City has requested that
Larimer County vacate sections of road right-of-way that were abandoned in 2008 when the
road was realigned and reconstructed by the City to provide access to Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area. The County conditioned its approval of the road improvements on the City’s
follow up to request this vacation in order to stop the unnecessary public use of the old
abandoned road areas and to allow the land to revert to the surrounding landowner(s). Once
the sections of right-of-way are vacated, the ownership will revert to the adjacent
landowners. In connection with the vacation of the unneeded sections of right-of-way, the
City is proposing to transfer to the County six new right-of-way easements that the City
acquired to build the realigned portions of the improved road. This transfer will establish
that the easements are held by Larimer County as public road easements for Rawhide Flats
Road along with the other segments of the Road, and that the right-of-way being vacated is
no longer needed.
The City has also asked the County to vacate any remaining public road rights-of-way within
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. This action will establish that Rawhide Flats Road north
of the Natural Area boundary line is a private road owned by the City for the sole purpose
of providing access to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. There are currently three property
owners with in-holding properties within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. When this section
of Rawhide Flats Road is vacated, these owners will lose their legal access to their
properties. In order to continue to provide these owners legal access to their property, the
City will need to grant each owner an access easement from the boundary of the Natural
Area to their property line. The access easements will follow the same alignment as the
existing road on the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
362
July 5, 2011
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
Capstone Development Corporation (“Capstone”) is planning a mixed use development.
This Project area is 10.4 acres and is located near Stuart Street and College Avenue. It fronts
College Avenue around the Discount Tire property and continues to the west to the railroad.
The project area is also at the rear of the Dairy Queen property. This mixed use
development is for student housing and retail space. It will have two buildings, 221 dwelling
units and 8,000 square feet of new retail space. The retail space will be the first floor of the
building fronting on South College Avenue.
For this development, Capstone has requested that the City grant Capstone a drainage
easement for construction of a new flood control channel, a drainage easement for sheet
flows from the adjoining property, and a temporary construction easement to construct a
pedestrian trail and an underground stormwater pipe on City-owned property known as
Creekside Park.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire Homes,
LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
Solitaire Homes, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 27 acre (approximately) development
north and west of Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road, opposite the Poudre School District
offices. To facilitate a planned trail within the development, the Developer requests a 438
square foot public trail easement from the City across City property managed by the Water
Utility. The City property is approximately 1,750 square foot. in size and is the site of a
Water Utility valve vault.
20. Resolution 2011-054 Naming Three Alleys Within the Block Bounded by South College
Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Olive Street.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is preparing a capital improvement project
to enhance three alleys in the block bounded by South College, West Laurel, South Mason
and West Olive. In conjunction with this project, the City of Fort Collins is preparing to
name these three alleys. The three proposed names are “John Coltrane Alley,” “Ella
Fitzgerald Alley” and “Billie Holiday Alley.” The selection of these three names is based
on a public outreach process that resulted in a winning theme of eclectic music and art. If
approved, the alley naming will simplify way-finding for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers,
delivery personnel and emergency responders.
21. Resolution 2011-055 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
At the June 7, 2011 meeting, Council requested the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board
modify the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the URA to formalize
363
July 5, 2011
the requirement that, when the City advances funds to the URA in support of the URA’s
activities, a loan agreement and promissory note accompany the advance of funds.
22. Resolution 2011-056 Making an Appointment to the Citizen Review Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation of Evan
Singleton. Councilmembers Gerry Horak and Ben Manvel and City Manager Darin
Atteberry reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Robert
Springer to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December
31, 2013.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming
Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Larimer
County of a Permanent Non-Exclusive Storm Drainage Easement on City Wastewater Utility
Property Including a Portion of Prospect Ponds Natural Area.
9. Items Relating to Approval and Appropriation of Two Real Property Land Donations to the
Natural Areas Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2011, Authorizing the Acceptance of a
Donation of 1.75 Acres From Larimer County and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2011, Authorizing the Acceptance of a
Donation of Three Acres from Mike Sollenberger and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2011, Appropriating Funds From the City’s General
Fund Reserves for Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of
Providing a Loan for the Kaufman and Robinson, Inc. Project at 1330 Blue Spruce.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Second Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority for the North College Marketplace Project.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2011, Approving the Waiver of City Fees for the
CARE Housing Affordable Housing Project in the Provincetowne Subdivision.
364
July 5, 2011
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and Other
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
15. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain
Definitions Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City
Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held
in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
17. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. First Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of Access
Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire Homes,
LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
365
July 5, 2011
27. Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2011 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Exhibits of
the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund.
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 20, Resolution 2011-054 Naming Three Alleys
Within the Block Bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street
and West Olive Street.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 15 and 21, Items Relating to
Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to
Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities, and Resolution 2011-055
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, withdrew Item Nos. 10, 11, and 13, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 074, 2011, Appropriating Funds From the City’s General Fund Reserves for
Transfer to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the
Kaufman and Robinson, Inc. Project at 1330 Blue Spruce, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075,
2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Second
Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the North College Marketplace Project, and
First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Light and
Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility Facilities in the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light and Power Appropriations into
the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
366
July 5, 2011
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Forbes.com has ranked Fort Collins as the fifth best city for business
and careers. Fort Collins was also ranked as the second best bicycling city in The Atlantic.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell stated he attended the Colorado Municipal League (CML) annual
conference with Councilmembers Poppaw and Horak and Mayor Weitkunat. He congratulated
Mayor Weitkunat on her election to the CML Executive Board.
Mayor Weitkunat stated CML is the statewide umbrella for municipalities’ shared advocacy and
provides tremendous networking opportunities.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson discussed the Finance Committee action to move forward expansion and
retention packages for Avago and Solix.
Ordinance No. 071, 2011,
Approving the Waiver of City Fees for the CARE Housing Affordable Housing
Project in the Provincetowne Subdivision, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under Colorado statute and City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions dating back to 1988,
the projects of housing authorities are exempt from taxes and fees. For many years, the City has
waived building permit and development review fees and some capital expansion fees for projects
of the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA), as required by the ordinance. For the most part,
these have been relatively small projects. FCHA is currently partnering with the non-profit CARE
Housing in a large, multi-family affordable housing project in the Provincetowne subdivision, which
is under construction. Fee waivers for this project total $557,378 (outlined in detail in “Financial
Impacts” below).
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, by a vote of 6-1 (nays: Ohlson).
Based upon Council’s comments and questions during First Reading of this ordinance, staff has
added more context, chronology, and explanation regarding affordable housing finance and the
request for fee waivers for the Provincetowne, Filing III development.
While the City has long been committed to affordable housing, and the need for financial support
is clearly demonstrated in the increase in the number of applications for local and federal funds,
the fiscal impact of this and future fee waivers for projects in which the FCHA is a partner rather
than sole owner warrants some thoughtful evaluation of the waiver situation, and possibly some
changes to the City Code. Additionally, considering the current and projected fiscal impact on the
City for fee waivers for large projects, clarification for the definition of “ownership” as it pertains
367
July 5, 2011
to the Housing Authority and its development partners will be part of the review. This policy issue
will be addressed at an upcoming work session. Pending that policy discussion, the City Manager
is recommending that Council consider waiving the fees due for the CARE Housing project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
CARE Housing (a non-profit) bought a portion of the Provincetowne project site, located at Autumn
Ridge Road and Trilby, from KB Homes to fulfill the affordable housing requirement for the entire
residential project. This is an 85-unit, $14.9 million townhome rental housing project intended to
serve families earning 30%-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). [Current Fort
Collins/Loveland AMI for a family of four is $76,700. An annual income of $23,000 = 30% AMI,
and $38,350 is 50% AMI].
Funding for the project is a combination of grants, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, owner equity,
and conventional financing.
Provincetowne Funding Sources Amount
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity $8,724,906
Tax Credit Assistance Program (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) $1,609,480
HUD Entitlement Funds – CDBG/HOME $1,455,011
City of Fort Collins – Affordable Housing Fund $100,000
Colorado Division of Housing $500,000
Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka $350,000
Permanent Loan Financing $2,060,000
Deferred Developer Fee $155,855
Development Total $14,955,252
The financing of affordable housing is complex, especially in today’s economic climate. A fifteen
year federal tax credit for private investors is a critical component of the financial package, and the
private investor (J.P. Morgan Chase, in this case) must be a 99% owner. The Housing Authority
is technically only a .001% participant in this project, but is further involved because it guarantees
up to $1.4 million of unanticipated costs. Both the tax credit and the fee waiver are critical
components of the Provincetowne project, and elimination of either could jeopardize the project.
Historically, the City has waived its fees for other, smaller projects in which the FCHA was a
minority partner. However, the magnitude of the fees associated with this project has prompted
extensive conversations about the ownership issue and the financial impact that the waiver of fees
for the project would have on the City. These conversations began during the building permit
application process for Provincetowne. Early on, the assumption was that there should be no
distinction between a project that is wholly owned or developed by FCHA, and one in which FCHA
has only a fractional participation. However, the magnitude of this proposed fee waiver prompted
a re-examination of the City’s legal obligation to waive fees for this kind of project. As the legal
requirements of state and local law on this subject were further explored, it became apparent that
there are two ways to interpret the law on fee waivers for housing authority projects. The difference
of opinion as to the proper interpretation of the law led to a new series of negotiations with all of
368
July 5, 2011
the parties, including consideration of deferral of the fees for some period of time. But because a
compromise could not be reached in the negotiations, the decision was made to seek policy direction
from City Council. The series of events was essentially as follows.
Project Timeline
November 2006 CARE Housing purchased the land
January 2007 CARE submitted first tax credit application, which was not strong to receive
a tax credit award
April 2008 CARE began discussions with FCHA about partnership
July 2008 FCHA Board of Commissioners approved formal participation intent by
resolution
August 2008 CARE Housing application for CDBG funds submitted. Fee waivers
discussed during pre-application meeting
September 2008 CARE Housing and FCHA present application for funding to CDBG
Commission. Financing package assumed City waiver of fees
January 2009 CARE submitted second tax credit application which included the strength
of FCHA as a partner and did include fee waivers
April 2009 CARE submitted third tax credit application with additional committed
grants and FCHA participation
June 2009 Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Reservation awarded by Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA)
November 2010 First building permits requested from the City of Fort Collins. Discussions
begin about the proper documentation to show FCHA’s ownership interest
and the applicability of the FCHA fee waivers Construction begins.
January 2011 FCHA learns of City concerns about the fee waivers. Building permits note
deferral of fees pending resolution.
February 2011 FCHA corresponds with the City about FCHA ownership, Ordinance No.
065, 1999 and Colorado Revised Statutes and continues to believe, based
upon the City’s response, that fee waivers would extend to Provincetown
partnership.
369
July 5, 2011
PDT management and City Manager’s office notified about situation. Interdepartmental staff team
(including City Attorney’s and City Manager’s office) undertakes research and development of
options.
March-May 2011Negotiations continue, involving City, FCHA, CARE Housing, and legal
representatives
A significant component of the financing picture for this project is the expectation by FCHA
partners and their lenders that the fee exemption which the Fort Collins Housing Authority is
eligible for under state law and the City Code passes to the other funding partners. This includes
a waiver of taxes and development review and capital expansion fees as provided in Sec. 7.5-17(1)
of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The degree of the FCHA’s ownership of the project has been
the subject of considerable discussion, but because of the statutory and municipal code provisions,
as well as historic precedent, FCHA and CARE assumed that the waivers would apply in this
project.
The City has routinely waived fees for FCHA projects in the past. Most of those waivers dealt with
small building permit projects, but the waivers also applied to the construction of the Via Lopez
project in 1998 and 1999. The FCHA was developer of the low-income homeownership project,
which included 22 single family detached homes sold to first-time homebuyers. These fee waivers
totaled approximately $107,476. In addition, two acquisition-rehabilitation projects were recently
completed by FCHA utilizing LIHTC financing: Village on Elizabeth in 2008, and Village on
Stanford in 2010. Both projects received total fee waivers of approximately $4,000. In both cases,
FCHA’s subsidiaries are a .01% partner and the equity investors have 99.9% interest in the
partnership for the tax credit period of 15 years. At the end of that period, FCHA will be 100%
owner. In 1995 and 1996, a 24-unit development on Impala Circle and a 44-unit development at
1403 West Swallow, of which the FCHA was a minimal owner, were built with total estimated fee
waivers of $164,808.
Several local projects, either partially or wholly composed of affordable units, have sought support
from the FCHA. Not all such requests have been approved by the FCHA Board. The FCHA
considers a number of criteria in reviewing such requests: financial feasibility, benefit to low-
income households, access to support services and other criteria, before agreeing to participate.
The funding of affordable housing projects requires strategic packaging of a variety of borrowed
resources, application for local and federal funds, and, in most cases, the IRS Low Income Housing
Tax Credit program. The LIHTC program requires that equity investors have a 99.9% ownership.
It is really the only tool for affordable housing development for the community’s lowest income
families. Without it, market rents would be necessary to make the financing work and likely would
no longer be considered as an affordable housing project.
Affordable Housing Projects and Fees
Development and building permit fees for affordable housing projects are currently handled in two
ways:
370
July 5, 2011
1. If the Housing Authority is involved, all fees and taxes, except for utility fees, are waived as
described above, pursuant to both State law and City Code.
2. For affordable housing projects that do not involve the Housing Authority, the following
occurs:
a. By City Code, development review fees are waived according to the percentage of
the project that meets the criteria for and has been designated as affordable. If a
project receives a 100% affordable housing designation, 100% of the development
review fees are waived; if 10% of the housing units are designated affordable, 10%
of the fees are waived.
b. By state and federal statutes, sales tax fees are waived for any tax-exempt entities.
c. By City Code, plan check, building permit and certain utility fees are collected at the
time of building permit issuance.
d. By City Code, all other fees are delayed until Certificate of Occupancy issuance, or
December 1st of the year the building permit was issued, whichever first occurs.
Development review fees cover services rendered. If the fees are waived, and the services are still
provided, then the General Fund presumably backfills the gap of expenses incurred. Likewise,
Capital Expansion Fees (parkland, fire, street oversizing, police, etc.) cover capital costs associated
with new development. If the fees are waived and the capital improvements still provided, then other
City, PFA and School District funds presumably backfill the gap. Utility connection fees are not
waived.
Over $1.5 million of City administered competitive funds, including CDBG and HOME, have
already been expended on the Provincetowne project, including payment of water tap fees, electric
capacity fees, PFA fees, and building permit fees. Building permits have been issued for all eleven
buildings and construction is underway, with the first units expected to be occupied by the end of
June 2011.
Because of concerns about significant financial and policy impacts on the City, management staff
and the City Attorney’s Office have explored several facets of this issue. Staff also worked with the
FCHA and CARE Housing on some proposed alternatives to a full waiver of fees for projects
involving FCHA partnership. Alternatives discussed include deferring those fees rather than
waiving them or limiting the waiver to situations where the FCHA is the majority owner of the
project. As noted above, each of these alternatives proved to be unacceptable to one or more of the
parties involved. As a result, the City Manager is recommending that the Council waive the fees for
the CARE Housing project and then address possible changes in the policy of continuing to waive
fees for these kinds of projects at a later time.
The most significant issue for Council consideration is the determination of eligibility for fee
waivers under current law. If Council determines that the Provincetowne project is not eligible for
371
July 5, 2011
a fee waiver because of the minority ownership position of the FCHA, and requires payment of the
fees, that decision could create a potential default situation. One possible remedy would be that
FCHA would step in, thereby creating full ownership, in a sense, and triggering a complex set of
legal and financial actions. A more likely scenario would be that FCHA and/or CARE would
assemble the funds to pay the fees.
To date, the project is on budget and ahead of schedule. The risk related to low income housing tax
credit (LIHTC) leasing requirements remains but is minimal. The only real risk at this point would
be the additional cost of over $500,000 in fees not waived. CARE Housing has the ability to
refinance a property it currently owns and could take out $509,896 in equity. CARE had planned
to refinance a property and take out this equity in order to make planned capital improvements
which would be deferred indefinitely if this money needs to go into Provincetowne.
Attachment 4 is a memo from Julie Brewen, FCHA Director, that gives FCHA’s perspective on the
proposed fee waiver, as well as an explanation of how the FCHA determines, on a case-by-case
basis, whether to enter into these kinds of partnerships.
Other Pending Affordable Housing Projects
The Legacy Senior Residences is expected to be under construction this fall, but this project will not
be requesting a waiver of fees. The cost of the fees has been built into the financing. Other projects
are in the early planning stages, but construction is not anticipated until at least 2013.
Other Communities
Fort Collins is not the only community faced with this situation. Staff research shows that despite
the state law, the waiver of fees is not consistently applied. Some cities waive fees as a matter of
policy, and some waive on a case by case basis. Some do not waive fees. A summary of the
research is included as Attachment 5.
Future Policy and Legal Issues
Several questions will be presented to Council at an upcoming work session, and may ultimately
result in changes to the City’s policies and ordinances regarding fee waivers.
• Does (or should) the waiver of fees for the Housing Authority properly extend to majority
partners, or should it be limited to projects wholly owned, developed and operated by the
Fort Collins Housing Authority, or projects with some specified ownership interest?
• Under what conditions should the City waive fees?
• If fees are waived, how are the financial impacts addressed?
372
July 5, 2011
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
For the Provincetowne project (eleven multifamily buildings; a total of 85 low income rental units),
the potential financial impact of a fee waiver to City funds is $557,378.
Approximately $4,762 of the fee revenue lost is Utility development review fees. Building permit
and plan check fees total $42,720. The remaining $509,896 is comprised of Capital Expansion fees
(Fire, Police, General Government, Parkland, Street Oversizing, and School fees). These figures
reflect recent changes in the capital expansion and utility development review fees. Some fees were
collected at the inception of this project because of the unresolved issues, and approximately
$17,177 will need to be refunded if the fees are waived.
The following is a breakdown of the $509,896 Capital Expansion Fees for the Provincetowne/CARE
housing townhome buildings.
Fire: $ 13,523
Police: $ 9,233
General Government: $ 16,920
Larimer County Roads: $ 15,725
Community Parkland: $118,830
Neighborhood Parkland: $106,590
City Street Oversizing: $148,665
School: $ 80,410
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES WAIVED:$509,896”
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, discussed the
Housing Authority ownership of the project and its exemption from taxes and fees. She discussed
the fees eligible to be waived. The Affordable Housing Board unanimously supported a motion to
recommend the fee waivers, which are also supported by staff.
Jim Martell, attorney representing the Housing Authority, discussed the possible ramifications of
the fees not being waived.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the reduction in payment in lieu of land fees for
Poudre School District.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, questioned the Housing Authority ownership percentage.
Mel Hilgenburg, 172 North College, thanked the Housing Authority for providing housing in Fort
Collins and urged Council to postpone a decision on the item.
Dawn Davis, CARE Housing Board President, stated residents have begun moving into the project.
She thanked Council and the City their assistance with the project.
373
July 5, 2011
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the logistics of waiving fees for other entities, such as Poudre
School District and Larimer County. Cumbo replied those capital expansion fees would not be
collected; however, the City is not required to backfill for other entities.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the impact of postponing a vote. Cumbo replied the primary
impact would be on CARE Housing and its relationship with its investor. Certificates of occupancy
are not generally issued unless fees are paid; temporary certificates of occupancy have been issued
already in this case.
Mayor Weitkunat asked Mr. Martell to address the 0.01% Housing Authority ownership of the
project. Mr. Martell presented an ownership structure chart. The investor receives the direct tax
credit only if its ownership is nearly 100%. In this case, CARE Housing has a very small percentage
of ownership as the General Partner and the Fort Collins Housing Authority has a small percentage
of ownership as the Administrative General Partner. The investor receives a tax credit for 15 years
and CARE Housing will receive $5 million in equity at the end of the 15 year period.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 071, 2011, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed the outcome of this item is an important one for the community but
stated he would not support the item given the 0.01% Housing Authority ownership and the fact that
Council is voting on the fee waiver after individuals are moving in to the project.
Councilmembers Horak and Poppaw expressed support for the project.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this project highlights some flaws in the affordable housing process.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project,
Ordinance Nos. 087 and 088, 2011, Adopted on First Reading,
Ordinance No. 089, 2011, Defeated on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
374
July 5, 2011
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water
Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2011 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water
Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Exhibits of the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund.
$3,875,000 in funding for the new Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center is needed now
to complete the building. Completion is scheduled for November 2011.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has committed $3 million for the building, but the
funds are not currently available. The DDA is exploring funding options but will not have the
funding in 2011. Adoption of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, will appropriate $3 million from General
Fund reserves for the museum project to complete the building. The DDA plans to reimburse the
City for the $3 million through financing provided by the City or from other funds secured by the
DDA.
The Non-Profit Corporation (NPC) has committed $4,761,916 to the museum building, with
$875,000 of that amount in the form of pledges to be paid between 2012 and 2014. The NPC is
working to obtain a private loan for the $875,000 but the financing will be costly and difficult to
obtain. Adoption of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, will appropriate $875,000 from reserves in the Water
Fund to complete the building. These funds will be transferred to the Capital Project Fund account
for the museum in the form of a loan to the NPC. The anticipated loan terms include an interest rate
of 3.5% and a maturity date of December 31, 2014. The loan will be evidenced by a loan and
security agreement and corresponding promissory note.
The NPC has raised $3.617 million for museum exhibits, with $1.2 million in the form of pledges
to be paid in future years (2011-2017). The new museum will open with a nice, but somewhat
limited exhibit experience without a bridge loan for the $1.2 million in exhibit pledges. Some
exhibits will be postponed, and other exhibits will be more static, without the depth of knowledge
or interactive technology that will be possible once the future year pledge money becomes available.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 089, 2011, will appropriate $1.2 million from Water Fund reserves for
museum exhibits. These funds will be transferred to the Capital Project Fund account for the
museum in the form of a loan to the NPC. The anticipated loan terms include an interest rate of
3.75% and a maturity date of December 31, 2017. The loan will be evidenced by a loan and security
agreement and corresponding promissory note.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PROJECT FUNDING
Through Council’s support, the Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science Center (DSC)
joined together to create an exceptional new museum experience and facility. In 2005, Council
375
July 5, 2011
included the new museum in the Building on Basics (BOB) capital program, which received strong
voter support. BOB provided approximately $6.183 million for the project and required DSC to
provide at least $3.6 million in matching funds. BOB also provides $200,000 annually for seven
years for operation and maintenance of the new facility. The DSC (which, along with the Museum
Advisor Board, has transitioned into the Museum Non-Profit Corporation (NPC)) has raised
approximately $8.879 million to date, far exceeding its original $3.6 million commitment.
In addition to BOB funding, approximately $6.529 million has been provided from other public
sources as follows:
• City Natural Resources: $1,000,000
(building $265,113 / exhibits $734,887)
• Art in Public Places (Utility Project): $ 435,000
• City land donation: $1,730,000
• Department of Local Affairs: $ 200,000
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: $ 75,000
• Downtown Development Authority: $3,000,000
• Estate Gift to the Fort Collins Museum $ 89,000
Other Public Funding $6,529,000
Building on Basics $6,183,000
NPC $8,879,000
Together, public and private contributions to the project total:$21,591,000.
Based on these funding commitments, the City sought and secured Council’s approval to
appropriate $15,109,666 for the exhibit master plan, and design and construction of the new
museum, as follows:
$6,183,750 from BOB
$3,275,000 ($3 million DDA; $200,000 DOLA; $75,000 grant, Ordinance No.130, 2009)
$4,561,916 from the NPC (Ordinance No. 117, 2010)
$ 89,000 from Estate Gift (Ordinance No. 101, 2009)
$1,000,000 from City Natural Areas Program
Allocation of Appropriated Funds
$13,218,105 Building
$ 1,891,561 Exhibit Master Plan and Natural Areas Exhibits
BUILDING FUNDS
On January 27, 2010, after completion of the Request for Proposal process, the City entered into
a design/build contract with Oz Architecture and Hensel Phelps for $11,400,000. On December 28,
2010, Change Order #1 was issued for $577,347 which increased the building square footage from
39,905 to 46,928. Additionally, Change Order #2 was issued May 4, 2011, for $159,824 for various
376
July 5, 2011
additional items incorporated into the contract. This brought the contract total to $12,137,171.
Remaining appropriated building funds were used for soft costs (fees, environmental tests/services,
project management etc.).
Building construction began in earnest on August 16, 2010 after completion of the development
review process and resolution of a land title issue with railroad right-of-way that required a re-
design of a storm water quality pond. Completion of the building is expected in November 2011.
As of June 30, 2011, the City has paid $8,754,611 to the contractor for work performed. Additional
payments of $3,382,560 are anticipated to complete the building as follows:
July 31 $786,000
August 31 $672,560
September 30 $603,500
October 31 $493,500
November 30 $440,000
December 31 $387,000
All available funding for the building has been expended. Consequently, the design/build contract
is short by $3,382,560.
DDA FUNDING:
The $3 million anticipated funding from the DDA is not currently available. The history of the DDA
commitment of the funding is as follows:
• April 2004: DDA Board approves $1 million for the museum project.
• May 2009: DDA Board approves an additional $2 million for the project, with construction
anticipated to begin in 2010.
• June 2010: DDA and City Finance begin negotiations of terms with Great Western Bank
for a 2010 bond issuance and determine capacity is not available to fund the museum
commitment in the 2010 bond series.
• July 2010: DDA inquires of City project staff as to when the $3 million is required,
indicating DDA had to limit the bond principal amount in 2010 and needs to include the
museum commitment in its 2012 bond issuance, and suggests working together on some
temporary solutions. Staff responds that DDA funds are needed in 2011, but does not take
action to identify solutions.
• March 2011: DDA is notified by City that project has a funding deficit and needs DDA
funds. DDA begins investigating options to fund the $3 million commitment but confirms
that funds will not be available in 2011.
377
July 5, 2011
NPC BUILDING FUNDS
The NPC has committed $4,761,916 to the building, with $875,000 of that amount in the form of
pledges that will be paid over the next few years. The $875,000 is needed in 2011 to complete the
building. The NPC has been working to secure a bridge loan from private lenders for the $875,000,
but the tight credit market has made this very challenging and expensive. Annual interest payments
in excess of $50,000 are expected. The NPC is committed to bridging the $875,000 in 2011 so the
building can be completed. However, if the City provides the funding it would save the project
considerable expense and assure timely completion (contingent on resolving the DDA funding
problem). The outstanding building pledges are from very reliable organizations, as follows:
The Griffin Foundation: $400,000 ($100,000 annually 2011-2014)
Woodward: $250,000 in 2012
The Gates Family Foundation:$250,000 in 2013
The Boettcher Foundation: $ 75,000 in 2013
Staff has investigated options for reducing the building expense. Unfortunately, the building project
is too far along to afford any significant savings. Staff has already made $300,000 worth of
reductions to keep the project within the original budget. Additional reductions would require
portions of the building to be unfinished.
APPROPRIATION FOR BUILDING
Adoption of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, appropriates $3,000,000 from General Fund reserves for the
museum project to complete the building. The DDA will reimburse the $3 million by obtaining
private financing, or through financing provided by the City, as approved by Council.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 088, 2011 appropriates $875,000 from Water Fund reserves to be
loaned to the NPC for the museum project to complete the building.
CONTRACT IMPLICATIONS
If the City fails to make a payment, the City may be in default under the contract.
NPC EXHIBIT FUNDS
$2.975 million for exhibits has been raised by the NPC. These funds have been restricted by the
donors for exhibits and cannot be used for the building. $1.2 million in exhibit donations will be
paid in future years as follows:
The Bohemian Foundation: $250,000 in late 2011
The Schatz Foundation: $250,000 in 2012
Woodward: $200,000 in 2014
Anonymous Donor: $500,000 ($100,000 annually 2013-2017)
378
July 5, 2011
The new museum will open with a nice, but somewhat limited exhibit experience absent a bridge
loan for the future year exhibit pledges. For example, the early childhood area would not be in
place; the live animal exhibit would include only the City’s modest current collection; the bike
exhibit would have to wait; and the Flood Theater exhibit would be postponed. Additionally, many
exhibits will be more static, without the depth of information or interactive technology that will be
possible once the future pledge funds become available. In contrast, three areas (Natural Areas,
Science Experience, and Music and Sound) will be fully executed on opening day because they are
funded by donations specifically designated for these exhibits.
APPROPRIATION FOR EXHIBITS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 089, 2011, appropriates $1.2 million from Water Fund reserves to be
loaned to the NPC for Museum exhibits and appropriates the same amount in the Capital Projects
Fund.
THE DIGITAL DOME
The Digital Dome Theater is the capstone element of the Museum of Discovery. It provides a 360
degree immersive experience for the exploration of astronomy, music, earth and climate science,
art, cultural history, presentations, and events. A $2 million campaign is underway to fund the dome
and $500,000 has been raised with $350,000 in the form of future year pledges. The NPC is
working to secure a private bridge loan for the $350,000 so the infrastructure for the dome can be
completed by the on-site building contractor. Completing this work in the future would be much
more ($125,000 to $200,000) expensive.
No Council action is being requested regarding the Digital Dome.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 087, 2011 appropriates $3,000,000 in the General Fund to cover
construction of the Museum building. The DDA’s pledge has already been appropriated in the
Capital Projects Fund, however the project is underway and they are unable to make payment at
this time.
To fund its pledge, the DDA plans to seek external financing. In that scenario the amount of
available reserves in the General Fund at the end of 2012 are forecasted to exceed the policy
minimum by $7,500,000. If however the DDA instead asks the City for a loan, and the loan is
granted, available reserves above the policy minimum will be $4,500,000.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 088, 2011 authorizes $875,000 in the Water Fund to be loaned to the
NPC. The NPC building commitments have already been appropriated in the project, however the
project is underway and they are unable to make payment at this time. The NPC has building
pledges equal to their commitment but the pledges will come in installments through 2014. The
Water Fund currently has reserves that exceed their policy minimums allowing them to make this
379
July 5, 2011
loan. The proposed terms are 3.5% annual interest and $875,000 in principal to be paid according
the loan agreement.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 089, 2011 authorizes $1,200,000 in the Water Fund to be loaned to the
NPC, and appropriates the same amount in the Capital Projects Fund for exhibits in the Museum.
The NPC has received exhibit pledges of $1,200,000 but the pledges will come in installments
through 2017. The Water Fund currently has reserves that exceed their policy minimums allowing
them to make this loan. The proposed terms are 3.75% annual interest and $1,200,000 in principal
to be paid according the loan agreement.
Utilities anticipates that significant capital project needs in the future and ongoing systemic
adjustment of Water Utility revenues and operating costs may necessitate water rate increases in
the future. The proposed loan of Water Fund reserves is not expected to create additional need for
rate increases or to cause the reserves to fall below required levels, assuming that staff-projected
rate increases are implemented. The Ordinance provides that it is the Council’s intent that in the
event that unexpected capital projects needs or timing results in an increased need for reserves in
the Water Fund, the Council would provide replacement funds in order to repay the loan to the
Water Fund to meet that need.”
City Manager Atteberry stated staff could have provided additional communication regarding this
project which has differed from most other City projects as it has a significant private sector
element. The communication issue has been caused by timing and various sources of money.
Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the financial history of the Fort Collins Museum
and Discovery Science Center projects. Cash flow issues have resulted from the inability of the
Downtown Development Authority to make its contribution at this time and the gradual inflow of
funds for exhibits and partial building construction. The Museum Nonprofit Corporation (NPC),
formerly the Discovery Science Center, committed $4.56 million of its funding for the museum
building; $875,000 of that is in pledges to be paid between 2012 and 2014. Ordinance No. 088,
2011, is an appropriation from the Water Fund which is anticipated to cover the $875,000.
Ordinance No. 087, 2011, is a $3 million appropriation from General Fund Reserves. Should these
appropriations not be approved, a stop work order will need to be considered. Ordinance No. 089,
2011, is a recommended appropriation from the Water Fund for $1.2 million which would allow the
NPC to ensure the exhibit space is complete when the building opens.
Jill Stillwell, Cultural Services Director, provided an overview of the Operating Agreement between
the City and the NPC. The NPC and the City remain separate entities though the City has been
allowed to appoint 3 members to the NPC Board. Each entity will be required to approve the
Operating Agreement on an annual basis.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, questioned the inability of the Downtown Development
Authority to pay its debts and questioned the use of the Water Fund for these appropriations.
Martina Wilkinson, NPC Executive Committee member, discussed community support for the
project and supported the Ordinances.
380
July 5, 2011
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked how much advance notice Council received regarding
financing of the RMI2 building. He asked for additional details regarding the status of the Water
Fund.
Dan Gessler, 2000 South College, president of Alden, discussed the decision of his engineering
company to open its western branch in Fort Collins, which was influenced by the cultural amenities
found in the City.
Steve Vandermeer, 1212 Westview, NPC Board President, expressed appreciation for the Board’s
partnership with the City and supported the Ordinances.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the work session scheduled to follow this meeting be postponed.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to reschedule the work
session to July 12, 2011. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
(**Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz was not present for the previous vote.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the repercussions of loaning the money. Freeman replied the
issuance of this loan would not have any impact on water rates and is treated as an investment.
Should those funds be needed for other uses in the future, Council could replace them with General
Fund Reserves. These loans are not considered to be long-term, but rather temporary fixes for
temporary cash flow issues.
Councilmember Horak asked why the larger $3 million appropriation was coming from the General
Fund Reserves. Freeman replied staff is attempting to balance where the dollars originate.
Councilmember Horak suggested the use of capital projects funds.
Councilmember Horak asked why an interest-bearing loan to the DDA was not considered. Freeman
replied it was considered. Matt Robenault, Downtown Development Authority Director, replied that
type of loan was not an option for the DDA because it bundles multiple projects together when it
issues debt.
Councilmember Horak suggested taxpayers are losing an opportunity to earn interest with the
proposed scenario. Robenault replied the DDA incurred additional costs when the City quit buying
its debt, as it had done for the past 9 years.
Councilmember Horak asked why the City stopped buying the DDA’s debt. Robenault replied using
the interest rates the City had offered in previous debt purchases would have provided the DDA with
381
July 5, 2011
$12.5 million in principal. Because the DDA had to find another debt purchaser, the incurred
financing costs prevented it from including the museum in the 2010 issuance.
Councilmember Horak suggested the City could possibly work out a loan with the contractor. Ken
Mannon, Operations Services Director, replied the option was discussed and the contractor indicated
that was not possible.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about implications to the City’s bond rating should it miss a payment
to the contractor and become in default of the contract. Freeman replied there may not be an impact
with one incident; however, further research would need to be carried out.
Councilmember Horak asked how the City obligated money it did not have. Freeman replied the
City intended to receive income from the funding partners. Obligations are occasionally made when
money is not yet in hand.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked where the DDA receives its funding and what role the City plays
in DDA funding. Freeman replied the City does not play a role in funding the DDA; it receives
funding through tax increment financing and an on-going mill levy. Robenault replied the DDA
receives a 5 mill property tax levy assessed within the district and receives tax increment financing
from building improvements.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked whether the City would be in default of the contract if these loans
are not made and who would be liable for the $600,000 payment should a work stoppage occur.
City Attorney Roy replied failure to make a payment per a contract is generally considered a
material breach of the contract. Mannon replied the City would be liable for the $600,000.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why the Water Fund is being used for part of the loan. Freeman
replied the $3 million is an appropriation, not a loan, from the General Fund Reserves. In the past,
the General Fund has been the only source for inter-fund loans or loans for projects such as this.
Council now has the ability to elect to take loans from other funds and the Water Fund currently has
the most resources.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why 100% of the projected revenues from retail sales at the museum
are slated to go to the private NPC, given 70% of the project will be funded by public dollars.
Stillwell replied the NPC solely survives off those types of revenues and donations.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how the City benefitted from negotiations. Stillwell replied having
a private partner allows the City to do significant fundraising and grant writing it is unable to do as
a municipal organization.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the operations and maintenance costs for the building. Stillwell
replied the operating plan has not yet been completed but will need to be in place and approved by
both the NPC and Council by the time the facility opens in 2012. The operating plan is slated to
have a 4-year projection.
382
July 5, 2011
City Attorney Roy clarified there is one formal agreement which has been executed between the
parties. That agreement calls for both parties to approve an operating plan on a regular basis.
Council’s approval and the NPC’s approval of that plan will likely need to be evidenced by
resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern that there is no definite plan for operations and
maintenance costs. City Manager Atteberry replied staff would respond to those concerns.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if staff is considering placing the NPC employees on the City’s health
insurance program. City Manager Atteberry replied there are other entities indirectly tied to the City
whose employees participate in the health insurance program. Ingrid Decker, Senior Assistant City
Attorney, replied the original concept was to allow the NPC employees to have equivalent benefits
through the City’s program, but at the cost of the NPC. However, it has since been determined that
is not feasible.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about donor acknowledgement policies. City Manager Atteberry
replied those policies were approved by the City Manager, per the operating agreement, and a copy
would be forwarded to Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the City’s $350,000 annual contribution versus the NPC’s
$100,000 amount. Stillwell replied one of the items which would cause the relationship between
the City and the NPC to dissolve would be if the City opted out of funding the facility. The
$350,000 is approximately half of the current annual City contribution to the facility; should the
City’s contribution go below that mark, it would be a trigger point for having a conversation about
the partnership continuing.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why only one of the City’s three Board seats has been filled. Stillwell
replied this is an opportunity for the City to expand is representation on the Board.
Councilmember Manvel stated it was an oversight to have not had complete representation on the
Board. City Manager Atteberry agreed but suggested moving forward with three representatives.
Marty Heffernan was the City’s lead negotiator on the contract and negotiated for over two years.
Councilmember Horak asked if there will be a membership to the Museum that will ultimately
appoint Boardmembers. Mr. Vandermeer, President of the NPC, replied the Board currently
appoints the Boardmembers, with the exception of the City representatives. Councilmember Horak
encouraged changing the system to allow the members to appoint Boardmembers.
Councilmember Horak asked if the NPC would be open to the City having more than three
representatives. Mr. Vandermeer replied the NPC welcomes the full Board representation and
would be open to discussion regarding additional membership.
Councilmember Horak proposed approving the loan from the Water Fund and changing its amount
from $875,000 to $2,075,000, allowing for work to continue for three more months, during which
time further discussion could occur regarding additional funding.
383
July 5, 2011
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 088, 2011 as amended, on First Reading.
City Attorney Roy asked for clarification regarding the motion which would not appropriate the
entire amount among the three Ordinances but would rather increase the amount in Ordinance No.
088 from $875,000 to $2,075,000. He requested latitude to make changes to the Ordinance to
achieve the appropriate intent.
City Manager Atteberry noted, should the motion be approved as stated, exhibit fabrication funding
would be affected; thereby affecting the museum opening. Stillwell stated it is possible for exhibit
fabrication to begin with money that has already been contributed for that purpose.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if these changes would negatively affect the bottom line. Stillwell
replied contracting the entire fabrication at once would provide certain efficiencies as opposed to
phasing; however, she did not have a specific dollar savings amount.
City Attorney Roy asked if appropriating some of the money for exhibits would be an acceptable
part of the motion.
Mayor Weitkunat clarified the motion on the table noting the loan would come from the Water Fund
in the amount of $2,075,000, for the purpose of paying three months of construction costs.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would like staff to have the flexibility to possibly add exhibit
fabrication costs as part of the Ordinance on Second Reading. Putting exhibit fabrication on hold
for three months will delay the museum opening, thereby affecting revenues.
Councilmember Manvel supported the concept of the motion but expressed concern regarding
adding the two unrelated sums together.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support the motion, though she appreciated the
attempt to compromise. She asked for a detailed accounting of the Water Fund with this loan.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion given the compromise attempts.
Councilmember Horak and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson amended the motion to adopt Ordinance No.
088, 2011, as written.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this project has a great deal of community support and it is unfortunate the
funding timing issue has become a focus.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
384
July 5, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No.
087, 2011, as amended, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to amend Ordinance
No. 087, 2011, to change the appropriation amount from $3 million to $1.5 million.
Councilmember Troxell asked what the impact such a change would have on the project. City
Manager Atteberry replied the previously adopted Ordinance No. 088, 2011, would fund July
construction costs. Funding 3 months of construction will cost approximately $2 million, not
including exhibit fabrication.
Councilmember Manvel clarified partial amounts of each loan will be repaid by the DDA.
Councilmember Horak clarified changing the amount to $1.5 million will fund the next three months
of construction while still allowing the investigation of other funding sources or replacement of this
General Fund money.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the duration of the loan. City Manager Atteberry replied,
once the DDA is able to sell its bonds, the City will receive the money quickly thereafter.
Additionally, significant pledges are due between 2012 and 2017.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry asked about Council’s intent regarding exhibit construction. Stillwell
replied there are designated immediately available funds for construction of the three exhibition
sections.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 087, 2011, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No.
089, 2011, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion as funds are already present to begin
exhibit construction. Stillwell confirmed the City is not yet under contract for exhibit fabrication
and noted adoption of Ordinance No. 089, 2011, would fund all eleven zones of exhibits.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the motion.
385
July 5, 2011
Councilmember Troxell asked when the exhibit pledges to pay for the loan in Ordinance No. 089,
2011, would be due. Stillwell replied the exhibit pledges would come in beginning in 2011 through
December, 2017. The loan would be repaid with a 3.75% interest rate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2011-057
Establishing a Process for Enhancing Communication Between the City Council and the
Council-Appointed Platte River Power Authority Board Member, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each of the four member cities that established Platte River Power Authority (“PRPA”) has two
representatives serving on the PRPA Board of Directors. One is the mayor, and the other is
appointed by City Council. In May 2011, Council requested that a process be established to provide
direction to the Council-appointed member of PRPA. This resolution establishes the process for the
Council-appointed Board member to communicate with, and receive comments from, City
Councilmembers.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PRPA was established by the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park to be their
wholesale power provider. The contract establishing PRPA requires each municipality to have two
members on the board of directors of PRPA. One is the mayor, and the other is appointed by City
Council.
Historically, the Council-appointed Board member has been the Director of Utilities. The Director
of Utilities reports to and receives direction from the City Manager. As the policy making body for
the City, Councilmembers desire to provide comments regarding positions the non-mayoral PRPA
Board member should take on particular PRPA agenda items.
386
July 5, 2011
This resolution establishes a process, consistent with the City Charter, to have the Council-
appointed Board member communicate with City Councilmembers and for Councilmembers to
provide comments regarding particular PRPA agenda items. “
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, stated this Resolution provides a process for the Council-
appointed representative to get feedback and input from Council and to provide information to
Council about issues coming before the PRPA Board.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Council is the only connection between citizens and
the PRPA Board. He opposed the Resolution.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-057, as amended.
Councilmember Poppaw supported the Resolution.
City Manager Atteberry noted this Resolution clarifies Council’s expectations of the relationship
between Council and the appointed Boardmember.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 074, 2011,
Appropriating Funds From the City’s General Fund Reserves for Transfer to the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Providing a Loan for the Kaufman
and Robinson, Inc. Project at 1330 Blue Spruce, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, authorizes a loan from the
City to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to reimburse Kaufman and Robinson, Inc for the public
improvements associated with building a new location at 1330 Blue Spruce Drive. Offsetting these
costs allowed the retention and expansion of a locally owned business to be economically feasible.
The total cost of this Project was $192,891. The requested loan amount from the City of Fort
Collins General Fund Reserves to the URA will be $192,891. The URA will utilize the City’s
Interfund Borrowing program that was formally added to the City’s investment policies in 2008.
This program enables the City to use a portion of its investment portfolio to assist City Departments
and related entities (e.g., the URA) to access funds at a competitive interest rate while still providing
a market based yield to the City investment portfolio.
387
July 5, 2011
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, asked why the City is loaning money to the Urban Renewal
Authority.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 075, 2011, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson discussed an article which stated California has eliminated urban renewal
authorities and tax increment financing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 075, 2011,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a
Second Loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for the North College
Marketplace Project, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 7, 2011, authorizes a loan in the
amount of $3 million from the City to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to fulfill the remaining
reimbursement obligation for the North College Marketplace granted by the URA Board in
September 2008. The first appropriation for $5 million was received in April 2009 for Off Site
Street Infrastructure, Wetlands Mitigation, and Demolition/Site Preparation. The requested loan
amount from the City of Fort Collins’ Water Fund Reserves to the URA will be $3 million and
reimbursed to the project for the On-Site public improvements. Staff originally intended to request
the funds from the City’s General Fund reserves however, after discussions with the Finance
department, Utilities and the Attorney’s office, the request changed to the Utilities Water Fund
reserves to ensure the URA was not overburdening the General Fund reserves.
Utilities anticipates that significant capital project needs in the future and ongoing systemic
adjustment of Water Utility revenues and operating costs may necessitate water rate increases in
the future. The proposed loan of Water Fund reserves is not expected to create additional need for
rate increases or to cause the reserves to fall below required levels, assuming that staff-projected
rate increases are implemented. The Ordinance provides that it is the Council’s intent that in the
event that unexpected capital projects needs or timing results in an increased need for reserves in
the Water Fund, the Council would provide replacement funds in order to repay the loan to the
Water Fund to meet that need It is anticipated that the URA will issue bonds within the next few
years, and in that event, the loan from the Water Fund would be repaid at that time.”
388
July 5, 2011
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, opposed making a loan from the Water Fund and asked about
the repercussions for not approving the loan.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 075, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 077, 2011,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Light and Power, Water and Wastewater
Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid
Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light and Power Appropriations into the Light
and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates capital project funding for the Utilities to relocate existing electric,
water and wastewater facilities to accommodate the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Project. Light and Power will also supply power to the bus stations along the corridor. The
Utilities are being viewed by the MAX/BRT Project as independent contractors and will be
reimbursed by the MAX/BRT Project funds for the relocation expenses upon completion. The
MAX/BRT Project will also pay for the cost of electric power supply to the bus stations. The
Ordinance provides new capital appropriations in the Light Power Fund ($620,000), Water Fund
($625,000) and Wastewater Fund ($1,150,000) for the relocation work. Following completion of
the construction, the Utilities will invoice the MAX/BRT Project based on actual costs and will
receive the unanticipated revenue being appropriated by the Ordinance.
In addition to electric duct bank relocation, Light and Power will use this opportunity to upgrade
the capacity of the duct bank. These system upgrade costs have been budgeted in Light and Power’s
existing 2011 lapsing appropriation. The Ordinance transfers $400,000 of the existing Light and
Power lapsing budget into the new BRT electric relocation/upgrade capital project. The costs of
the upgrade will not be reimbursed by the MAX/BRT Corridor Project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Ordinance appropriates the following funds related to utilities work to accommodate the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. The amounts shown are construction estimates. The
MAX/BRT Corridor Project will pay the Utilities based on actual design and construction costs.
Relocation work will not proceed until authorization is issued by the MAX/BRT project manager.
389
July 5, 2011
$400,000 Light and Power Fund – New Capital Project Appropriation
This portion of the appropriation is fifty percent of the $800,000 cost to relocate and upgrade
existing electric facilities for the MAX/BRT Project Corridor Project. This phase will involve the
relocation of the duct bank between Drake and Prospect. The duct bank is being relocated due to
logistical conflicts with the Mason Street Corridor guide way. Construction on this phase is
anticipated to be completed by year-end. This $400,000 expense will be reimbursed by the
MAX/BRT Project funding.
$400,000 Light and Power Fund – Transfer of Existing 2011 Appropriation
The Light and Power Fund will bear fifty percent of the cost for the $800,000 upgrade and
relocation because this project will enlarge capacity for the electric system as well as move the
existing system to accommodate the MAX/BRT Project. This portion of the appropriation is to be
transferred from the existing 2011 Light and Power appropriation into the new Light and Power
capital project. There will be no reimbursement for this half of the expense.
$220,000 Light and Power Fund - New Capital Project Appropriation
This is the estimated cost to provide electric service to the bus stations along the MAX/BRT Project
Corridor. This electric construction is planned for 2012 and 2013. One hundred percent of the
station power costs will be reimbursed by MAX/BRT Project.
$625,000 Water Fund - New Capital Project Appropriation
$1,150,000 Wastewater Fund - New Capital Project Appropriation
With the construction of the MAX/BRT Project beginning in 2011, the Utility is faced with as many
as 18 separate locations where the MAX/BRT crosses or parallels existing water and sewer
infrastructure. This will impact the integrity, serviceability, longevity and safety of the operation of
both the Utility pipelines and the MAX/BRT. Because of potential negative impacts to the Utility
infrastructure (both immediately and in the future) or future impacts to the MAX/BRT, this is the
opportunity to improve, modify and/or protect the water and sewer lines before the BRT
improvements are built. The project has a short lead time with design scheduled to be done by early
fall and construction completed by early in 2012. One hundred percent of the Water and
Wastewater Utility’s expenses will be reimbursed by MAX/BRT Project funding.”
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, expressed concern citizens were not able to vote on the Mason
Street Corridor project expenditures. He encouraged placement of the item on the November ballot.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the high voltage lines at the Drake substation are scheduled to be
undergrounded. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied in the negative.
Councilmember Troxell suggested this would be an appropriate opportunity to put together a
proposal for undergrounding there and for all other high voltage transmission lines in the City.
Catanach replied that could be explored and a report prepared.
390
July 5, 2011
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 077, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of
Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for
Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26 of
the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain Definitions
Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code
and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Interconnection
Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System
The Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Department is proposing minor revisions to the
definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and the
Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of General Manager, clarification
regarding the provision of net metering service and clarification regarding authority to execute
interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City. Light and Power is also
recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements
contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other
requirements for interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Light and Power Department is proposing the following revisions to the Electric Article of the
City Code and revisions to the Land Use Code. These revisions are primarily definitional in nature.
1. Title revision and appointment: General Manager of Utility Services or General Manager
shall mean Utilities Executive Director or appointed designee of such Executive Director.
Sec 26-391. “Definitions”.
2. Clarifying that “Net metering service” is available exclusively for a qualifying facility
“using a qualifying renewable technology”. Sections 26-391, 465 through 468.
391
July 5, 2011
Also included is an amendment specifically authorizing the Utilities General Manager or the
Manager’s appointed designee to sign interconnection agreements or parallel generation
agreements.
Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and
insurance requirements contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. As currently written,
the indemnification and insurance requirements in the Interconnection Standards allow for no
flexibility where a governmental entity cannot by law indemnify the City and may elect to self-insure
in accordance with Colorado law. By adding the following language, “except when the Operator
is a governmental entity that self-insures in accordance with Colorado law”, the City’s
Interconnection Standards will now allow for that flexibility. “
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the renewable energy aspects of the Ordinances.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would like the City to have a more comprehensive perspective
with regard to the marketplace and would like to see real-time information going to customers as
part of the Smart Meter program. He asked about the feed-in tariff, time of use, and other demand-
side management issues.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 079, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 081, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-054
Naming Three Alleys Within the Block Bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel
Street, South Mason Street and West Olive Street, No Action Taken
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
392
July 5, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is preparing a capital improvement project to
enhance three alleys in the block bounded by South College, West Laurel, South Mason and West
Olive. In conjunction with this project, the City of Fort Collins is preparing to name these three
alleys. The three proposed names are “John Coltrane Alley,” “Ella Fitzgerald Alley” and “Billie
Holiday Alley.” The selection of these three names is based on a public outreach process that
resulted in a winning theme of eclectic music and art. If approved, the alley naming will simplify
way-finding for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, delivery personnel and emergency responders.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Downtown Development Authority is continuing its alley improvement program for the 2011
construction season. Similar previous efforts resulted in improved alleys that are attractive,
brighter, safer and more heavily traveled. Providing names for these alleys helps the public
navigate the City’s urban area and contributes to an overall sense of direction. Naming these alleys
is consistent with past practice: Trimble Court, Tenney Court, Old Firehouse Alley, and Montezuma
Fuller Alley.
Review of the request to name these three alleys has followed the Current Planning Department’s
procedures for street naming. Since the alleys fall below the classification of arterial and collector
streets, the names do not need to be derived from the approved list of names established by City
Code Section 24-91. All directly affected property owners were notified, as well as surrounding
property owners. The Poudre Fire Authority and all affected utilities, City departments, and various
mapping agencies were notified. All respondents indicated that there are no problems or concerns
with the proposed names.
The public outreach and name selection process included meetings and mailings with surrounding
property owners beginning with a public meeting on March 30, 2011. Participants were first asked
to prioritize a theme. Four themes were offered. These themes and their final rank order in the
voting, were eclectic music and art, trains, Colorado State University, and history. The process is
explained more completely in the Public Outreach section below.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no negative financial impacts to City of Fort Collins as the cost of installing new street
signs will be borne by DDA’s capital project fund. The overall economic health of the City will be
enhanced with improved alleys that will benefit the safety and mobility of business owners,
employees, customers and the general public. Maintenance of the alleys will be similar to that for
the other improved downtown alleys, and funded through the existing contract between the DDA and
the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. These improvements may provide a catalyst for private
property owners to re-invest and upgrade their properties.
393
July 5, 2011
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public outreach and name selection process consisted of a kick-off public meeting on March 30,
2011 which established four themes as a method for narrowing down the options. A variety of
names were suggested for each theme. These themes, and their final rank order in the voting were:
eclectic music and art, trains, Colorado State University, and history. This was followed by
numerous contacts with the surrounding property owners and included a mail-in survey to 55
stakeholders. Survey results were eclectic music and art - 7 votes, trains - 4 votes, Colorado State
University - 4 votes, and history - 1vote, and resulted in the winning theme and three names.
Finally, a mailing to affected property and business owners within approximately 800 feet of the
subject alleys was sent to inform them about the proposed Resolution on the July 5, 2011 City
Council agenda.”
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern there is no local context for the proposed alley names.
He asked that the item be reconsidered with more public input and thoughtful deliberation.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, noted living people are not considered when naming collectors and
arterials within the City.
Derf Green, Downtown Development Authority, stated public input was solicited throughout the
area resulting in only very limited participation. The theme for this alley is eclectic art and music.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged broadening the Colorado State University and train theme ideas.
Amanda Miller, Project Manager, stated three names of recently deceased CSU faculty were
presented to participants at the original meeting and participants did not feel it was appropriate to
use those names.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated Council should have been consulted earlier in the process. He asked
how the eclectic music theme was derived. Shepard replied the idea is to foster a hip urban scene
and create a catalyst for further redevelopment in this subsection of the downtown area.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the names may not foster the proposed direction.
Councilmember Poppaw appreciated the direction but agreed with Mayor Weitkunat. She asked
about the timing of the issue. Mr. Green replied the timing is driven, in part, by the necessity to
place the alley name in a concrete band on either end of the alley.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the public outreach for naming should have extended beyond just
the bordering property owners.
City Manager Atteberry suggested staff return in two weeks with new options.
394
July 5, 2011
Resolution 2011-055
Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the June 7, 2011 meeting, Council requested the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board modify
the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the URA to formalize the requirement
that, when the City advances funds to the URA in support of the URA’s activities, a loan agreement
and promissory note accompany the advance of funds.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Council would like to formalize the process for loaning funds to the URA based on approved
projects and eligible costs associated with the development. The URA continues to need funding
from the City for projects until such time that the URA can obtain private financing with proven
revenue streams sufficient to pay higher interest rates on its loans. The City wants to ensure the
funding is appropriately dedicated to a project with a loan agreement and promissory note in
place.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern the URA does not have a business plan.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-055. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to waive the attorney-
client privilege as it applies to the report that Council has received from special counsel legal Gerald
E. Dahl concerning the City’s relationship with Character Fort Collins, which report is dated June
10, 2011, so that the report can be made available to the public. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
395
July 5, 2011
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
396
July 19, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Chuck Washington, 1125 Deercraft Court, spoke regarding expenditure of surplus funds and
encouraged reinstituting Dial-a-Ride services in the southeast part of town.
Chantel Havre, 1705 Remington Street, Community for Sustainable Energy, discussed sustainable
energy in Fort Collins and thanked Councilmembers for their service.
Peggy Loonan, 708 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding the City appeal process and opposed
current practices of staff in that process.
Laurence Budd, 1442 Glen Haven Drive, discussed FCPAN, the Fort Collins public access channel
and requested that the rejection of a certain medical program be examined.
Joan Black, 1206 Canvasback Court, thanked Councilmember Horak for his response regarding
Dial-a-Ride access and supported expanding access further south.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed the staff recommendation regarding Item No.
19, Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council
Meetings.
Pam Jennings, Disabled Resource Services, 424 Pine Street, thanked Council and the Fort Collins
CDBG Commission for fully funding the Disabled Resources Services funding request.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, showed a video of Steve Catanach, Light and Power
Operations Manager, stating Council had vetted the business case for the Smart Meter project. Mr.
Sutherland alleged that is not a true statement.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, thanked Councilmember Troxell for pulling the alley naming
issue off the July 5, 2011 Consent Calendar. He suggested alternative names of Will Schwartz, Otto
Warner, and Gale Hilgenberg.
397
July 19, 2011
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, discussed inconsistencies between the City’s bicycle policies
and the Land Use Code. He offered several suggestions to improve the situation including the
creation of a Bike Overlay Zone within 1.5 miles of CSU’s campus.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, discussed Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095,
2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council. She supported the
Ordinance as it would allow site visits by Council.
Jonathan Feiman, 959 Gilgalad Way, opposed staff’s role in the preparation of Agenda Item
Summaries for appeals of land use decisions.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat spoke on behalf of City employees in response to Mr. Sutherland’s accusations.
She spoke to the honesty, integrity, ethics, and quality work of City staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with Mayor Weitkunat and spoke to the integrity of staff.
Councilmember Manvel requested an explanation regarding Mr. Budd’s question about the public
access channel programming.
Councilmember Horak requested an examination of the current Dial-a-Ride system and feedback
regarding concerns. He asked for numerical data supporting the Smart Meter program and for an
explanation of the appeal process that can be shared with citizens.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked Mr. Washington and Ms. Black for their input regarding the
southeast connections for Dial-a-Ride. She stated she would like to see Transfort and Dial-a-Ride
as two separate issues in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested all available information regarding the context of the decision to
decrease Dial-a-Ride services, which had been above and beyond federal standards previously.
Councilmember Horak requested an analysis of the distribution of available funds with respect to
possibly increasing Dial-a-Ride services.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there are revised Ordinances for Item Nos. 18 and 26, First Reading
of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council and
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project. Item No. 28, First
Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of Chapter
2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy
Board, is recommended to be withdrawn to the August 16, 2011 meeting.
398
July 19, 2011
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority provides funds to the Fort Collins Police Services
to be used for equipment and training to process E911 calls. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates those funds.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates capital
project funding for the Utilities to relocate existing electric, water and wastewater facilities
to accommodate the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. Light and Power
will also supply power to the bus stations along the corridor.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and Other
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates an
$85,000 awarded by Great Outdoors Colorado has awarded for the completion of the Hughes
Stadium Disc Golf Course. The project involves the development of an 18-hole disc golf
course at Hughes Stadium in conjunction with Colorado State University. The course is
primarily located in the stormwater detention basin directly west of Overland Trail Road.
The course will include new trees and shrubs, a new access road off County Road No. 42C,
and the course tee areas and baskets.
9. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and
Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the
City Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System.
399
July 19, 2011
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor
revisions to the definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of
the City Code and the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of
General Manager, clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and
clarification regarding authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements
on behalf of the City. Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to
the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements contained in the City’s
Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other requirements for
interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, calls a Special
Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County
Coordinated Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred
issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to place any measures on the ballot it
would need to do so no later than at its August 16 meeting. If Council does not take action
by ordinance or resolution before the statutory deadline (September 2) to certify ballot
language to Larimer County, the election will be cancelled and the provisions of this
Ordinance will be of no further force and effect.
This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 1, 2011 ballot.
However, a group of citizens is currently circulating an initiative petition proposing a
prohibition on the establishment, operation or licensing of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product
manufacturing within the city of Fort Collins. The deadline to submit the petition to the City
Clerk’s Office is July 19, 2011. Adoption of this Ordinance is a required step in preserving
the option for City Council to submit the initiated ordinance, and/or any other ballot
measures that Council may desire, at the November 1, 2011 Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Access Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
To complete the process of improving Rawhide Flats Road, the City has requested that
Larimer County vacate sections of road right-of-way that were abandoned in 2008 when the
road was realigned and reconstructed by the City to provide access to Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area. The County conditioned its approval of the road improvements on the City’s
400
July 19, 2011
follow up to request this vacation in order to stop the unnecessary public use of the old
abandoned road areas and to allow the land to revert to the surrounding landowner(s). Once
the sections of right-of-way are vacated, the ownership will revert to the adjacent
landowners. In connection with the vacation of the unneeded sections of right-of-way, the
City is proposing to transfer to the County six new right-of-way easements that the City
acquired to build the realigned portions of the improved road. This transfer will establish
that the easements are held by Larimer County as public road easements for Rawhide Flats
Road along with the other segments of the Road, and that the right-of-way being vacated is
no longer needed.
The City has also asked the County to vacate any remaining public road rights-of-way within
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. This action will establish that Rawhide Flats Road north
of the Natural Area boundary line is a private road owned by the City for the sole purpose
of providing access to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. There are currently three property
owners with in-holding properties within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. When this section
of Rawhide Flats Road is vacated, these owners will lose their legal access to their
properties. In order to continue to provide these owners legal access to their property, the
City will need to grant each owner an access easement from the boundary of the Natural
Area to their property line. The access easements will follow the same alignment as the
existing road on the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. These Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
Capstone Development Corporation is planning a mixed use development. The project area
is 10.4 acres and is located near Stuart Street and College Avenue. It fronts College Avenue
around the Discount Tire property and continues to the west to the railroad. The project area
is also at the rear of the Dairy Queen property. This mixed use development is for student
housing and retail space. It will have two buildings, 221 dwelling units and 8,000 square
feet of new retail space. The retail space will be the first floor of the building fronting on
South College Avenue.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, authorizes a
drainage easement for construction of a new flood control channel, a drainage easement for
sheet flows from the adjoining property, and a temporary construction easement to construct
a pedestrian trail and an underground stormwater pipe on City-owned property known as
Creekside Park.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire
Homes, LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
Solitaire Homes, LLC is planning a 27 acre (approximately) development north and west of
Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road, opposite the Poudre School District offices. This
401
July 19, 2011
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, authorizes a 438 square
foot public trail easement from the City across City property managed by the Water Utility
to facilitate a planned trail within the development.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves
for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank
Program. All of the authorized expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for
which the dollars were originally appropriated could not be completed during 2010.
Reappropriation of $295,821 is necessary for completion of the projects in 2011. These
unexpended monies lapsed into the General Fund balance at the end of 2010 and reflect no
change in Council policies.
15. Items Relating to the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and LaPorte Avenue Bridge
Replacement.
A. Resolution 2011-058 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation for the Construction of the Shields Street
Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
from the Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund
for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department has been awarded three grants from the
federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932. This funding
contract between the City and Colorado Department of Transportation is for the replacement
of two structurally deficient bridges owned by the City. The two bridges are Shields Street
Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, and Laporte Avenue Bridge over the Arthur Ditch.
16. Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power Arrangement for the Water Treatment Facility.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power
Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment
Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
B. Resolution 2011-059 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to a Selected Solar Provider
for the Use of the City Water Treatment Facility Property for a Solar Project.
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a
portion of electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will
design, construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This
Ordinance allows for a 20-year contract between the system developer and the City. The
402
July 19, 2011
Resolution issues a revocable permit for use of a portion of land onsite of the Water
Treatment Facility by the photovoltaic system developer.
17 .Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and Updating Related City Code References.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of
the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of
the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
In an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide
options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these
Code amendments will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six (6) inch
height limit. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalo grass, and
they would have a height limit of twelve (12) inches.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing
Appeals to the City Council.
This Ordinance changes the timing for the scheduling of appeal hearings and for requesting
site inspections and also amends the appeals procedure so as to allow the general public to
participate in the appeal hearing and to allow Councilmembers who have filed an appeal to
participate in deciding the appeal.
19. Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City
Council Meetings.
This Resolution would amend the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council
meetings with regard to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the
meetings. The 30-minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen Participation segment
of the meetings would be eliminated and two topics would be specified as not appropriate
for comment: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting and quasi-judicial matters.
20. Resolution 2011-061 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
403
July 19, 2011
21. Resolution 2011-062 Making Appointments to the Retirement Committee and the Women’s
Commission.
A vacancy currently exists on the Retirement Committee due to the resignation of Dick
Burkhartzmeyer. Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Wade Troxell reviewed the applications
on file. The interview team is recommending John Lindsay to fill the vacancy with a term
to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011.
A vacancy also exists on the Women’s Commission due to the resignation of Randi Nelson.
Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Wade Troxell conducted
interviews. The interview team is recommending Jan Hawn to fill the vacancy with a term
to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and Other
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Access Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
404
July 19, 2011
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire
Homes, LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
26. Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort
Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves
for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields
Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
25. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human Services Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
Councilmember Horak withdrew Item Nos. 18 and 19, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011,
Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code
Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council and Resolution 2011-060
Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings.
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 17, Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and
Updating Related City Code References.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 9 and 16, Items Relating to Amendments
to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for
Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities and First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011,
405
July 19, 2011
Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider
at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak, and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for a brief description of Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance
No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of
Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and
Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement. Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital Projects Manager,
replied the item references two bridges that will be replaced using grant funds received from the
Colorado Department of Transportation. As grant money will be used, previously allocated dollars
will be used to redesign two additional deficient bridges.
Councilmember Horak suggested additional details be present when describing bridge locations.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Fort Collins has been designated as one of the best locations for tri-
athletes. Lawrence Pollack, Finance Department Systems Analyst, identified a need for and created
a Budgeting for Outcomes process network.
John Stokes presented an update regarding the Poudre River Ecological Vision, a project being
proposed by the Natural Resource Department. The project would create a high-level, yet
quantitative, ecological description of the Poudre River. Costs are expected to be relatively low with
a fair amount of volunteer work coming from Colorado State University personnel. This project is
not driven by other water projects such as Seaman Reservoir.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a similar project is being proposed for other City watersheds.
Stokes replied a group at Utilities is examining small stream systems within the City. Kevin Gertig,
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, replied those studies are an important part of
the City’s urban watershed monitoring program. A full report and assessment will be provided to
Council in the near future.
Councilmember Horak encouraged the involvement of the United States Geological Survey.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported the project and staff’s initiative in its proposal.
406
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel reported on a new brochure from the Poudre River Heritage Board. The
brochure will be available in local bookstores and discusses the history of Poudre River water
projects and provide descriptions of the River sections.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Beet Street and the City for their efforts at obtaining the National
Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant. Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director, stated the grant
will fund planning and design of an art incubator in Fort Collins.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the Finance Committee discussed the Avago project and the sales tax
rebate on food. Additionally, the Committee recommended the Downtown Development Authority
not move forward with the downtown hotel project request for proposal.
Mayor Weitkunat stated there will be a regional meeting with Loveland and Larimer County at
Harmony Library Thursday regarding connection and transportation issues. She complimented the
recent renovations to Council chambers.
Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive
Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and
Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the
City’s Human Services Program, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-063 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will
Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, the Home
Investment Partnerships Program, and the City’s Human Services Program.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-064 Approving the Fiscal Year 2011 Administration
and Project Budgets for the Home Investment Partnerships Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment
Partnerships Fund.
E. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-065 Eliminating Restrictions on the Use of Affordable
Housing Funds Currently Earmarked for the Acquisition of Former Rental Properties.
407
July 19, 2011
Resolution 2011-063 will complete the 2011 spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating
City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development
activities by listing the specific programs/projects that will receive funding starting October 1, 2011.
Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Resolution 2011-064 establishes the
major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2011 program year, which also
starts on October 1, 2011. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in
November as a result of the 2011 fall cycle of the competitive process. Ordinance No. 097, 2011,
appropriates the City’s FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Resolution
2011-065 eliminates the restriction on $60,000 of Affordable Housing Fund dollars that they be
used for the acquisition of former rental properties by first-time home buyers to allowing the funds
to be used for the purchases of non-rental properties.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2011-063 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG
funds for the FY 2011 program year (including funds from the Entitlement Grant and Program
Income), which starts on October 1, 2011; which programs and projects will receive funding from
carry-over funds from the HOME Program; and which programs will receive funding from the
City’s 2011 Human Services Program. The CDBG Commission presents to the City Council a list
of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The following table
summarizes the total amount and sources of all available CDBG, HOME, and City funds for
distribution during the spring cycle of the competitive process:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$923,469 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
61,815 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
8,883 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$2,065,454 Total Funding Available
Unprogrammed funds are funds from previous years that have yet to be allocated to specific
programs or projects. Program Income includes repayments from rehabilitation loans and home
buyer assistance loans along with repayments from development loans. Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) funds are HOME funds that need to be reserved for allocation
to agencies which qualify as CHDOs including the Fort Collins Housing Corporation, CARE
Housing, and Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Inc..
The FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income totals $994,167. HUD
regulations limit a maximum of 20% of these funds, or $198,832, for planning and program
408
July 19, 2011
administrative purposes. The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds
for planning projects and CDBG Program administrative costs:
Funding for Planning and CDBG Program Administration
AMOUNT SOURCE
$184,693 20% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
12,363 20% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,776 20% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
$198,832 Total Funding Available for Planning and CDBG Program
Administration
HUD regulations limit a maximum of 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG funds and CDBG Program
Income, or $149,124 for use in the Public Services category. The City’s 2011 Human Services
Program adds $389,601 and Human Services Program KFCG funds adds an additional $150,733,
for use in the category, for a total of $689,458 of available funding. The following table summarizes
the amount and sources of available funds for public/human service proposals:
Funding for Public/Human Services
AMOUNT SOURCE
$138,520 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
9,272 15% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,332 15% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$689,458 Total Funding Available for Public/Human Services Proposals
Considering the set-asides for Planning and Administration and Public/Human Services presented
above, the balance of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income amounts,
or $646,211, plus $191,338 of unprogrammed FY 2010 CDBG funds, $211,906 of unprogrammed
FY 2010 HOME funds, $102,381 of unprogrammed FY 2010 HOME CHDO funds, and $25,328 of
unprogrammed FY 2004 HOME CHDO funds, provide an amount of $1,177,164 available for
allocation to affordable housing proposals. The following table summarizes the amount and sources
of available funds for affordable housing proposals:
Funding for Affordable Housing
AMOUNT SOURCE
$600,256 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
40,180 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
5,775 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
409
July 19, 2011
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
$1,177,164 Total Funding Available for Affordable Housing Proposals
The City received 31 applications for funding and a staff administration request as part of the 2011
spring cycle of the competitive process requesting a total of $2,678,987. The total amount of funds
available from all sources is $2,065,454. The total of application requests is, thus, $613,533 more
than the amount of available funding. Also, HUD regulation limitations within the Public Services
category results in a total of $260,697 more in requests than available funds for the category.
Unfortunately, funds in the Planning and Administration and Affordable Housing categories can
not be used to fund any Public Service applications. The following table summarizes the amount
of funding requests compared to the amount of funding available for each of the major funding
categories.
Category
Number of
Applications
Requested
Funding
Available
Funding
Request-
Available
Difference
Affordable Housing 3 $1,530,000 $1,177,164 -$352,836
Public Services 28 $950,155 $689,458 -260,697
Administration - $198,832 $198,832 0
Totals 31 $2,678,987 $2,065,454 $-613,533
Removing Restrictions on the Use of Affordable Housing Funds in the Home Buyer Assistance
Program
The City’s Home Buyers Assistance (HBA) Program uses funding from the HOME and CDBG
federal grants and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). In the past, normal assistance has
been split with 50% coming from the HOME Program and 50% coming from the CDBG Program
(federal regulations limit the use of CDBG funds to be no more than 50% of the total assistance).
The City’s AHF dollars have been earmarked for assistance to families wishing to purchase former
rental housing units (for the use of federal funds, federal regulations require rental units to be
vacant for three months in order to avoid displacement concerns and relocation payments).
With the change in federal HOME regulations, it is now basically impossible to continue using
HOME funds as the 50% match to CDBG funds in providing down payment and closing cost
assistance in the HBA Program. Staff is suggesting that the City change its policy regarding the use
of the AHF in the HBA program, eliminating the condition that they be used only for the acquisition
of former rental units and allowing the funds to be used for any home purchase. Staff’s request is
to remove the “former rental unit only” restriction for $60,000 of AHF dollars already approved
through the competitive process for the HBA. This $60,000 could then be used to match $60,000
of CDBG funds already allocated to the HBA Program. This would still leave $84,000 of AHF to
assist first-time home buyers wishing to purchase former rental units.
410
July 19, 2011
Without the ability to use AHF as a match, assistance in the HBA would be limited to CDBG funds,
or only half the amount of assistance families would need to acquire a new home. Stated another
way, without a 50% match to CDBG funds, families would need to have between $4,000 and $5,000
of their own money to buy a home – not many low-income families have that amount of funds
available.
The CDBG Commission discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on February 10, 2011, and voted
unanimously to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment 8).
The Affordable Housing Board discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on March 3, 2011, and
voted unanimously to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment
9).
Resolution 2011-065 would eliminate the restrictions on the use of $60,000 of Affordable Housing
Funds currently earmarked for the acquisition of former rental properties and permit the funds to
be used for the acquisition of any home by a first-time home buyer.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the Home Investment Partnership
(HOME) Program provide federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City’s General Fund Budget
to address such needs. The total amount of CDBG funds available for allocation during FY 2011
is $1,185,505, while the total amount of HOME funds for FY 2011 is $644,352. Together, the
CDBG and HOME programs provide $1,829,857 of federal funds to the City. The City’s General
Fund does contribute $389,601 in the Human Services Program and $150,733 of KFCG funds for
allocation during the spring cycle, and $325,024 of Affordable Housing Fund dollars for the fall
cycle of the competitive process.
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the
community. This means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit
to economic sustainability.
Public/human service programs contribute to economic sustainability by providing such programs
as job training and child care, so workers can maintain their employment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable
housing options for lower income people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the
community instead of being forced to live outside the community and commute into the city for work.
This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
411
July 19, 2011
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green
building practices. Green building practices are being used in both new construction and major
rehabilitation of existing housing unit projects. These practices include geo-thermal applications
and other energy saving techniques.
All affordable housing projects utilizing CDBG and HOME funds are required to pass a HUD
environmental review which covers such items as noise impacts, floodplains, hazardous materials,
etc.”
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, discussed the history and aspects of the competitive process. Sources
of funding are primarily the CDBG and HOME programs as well as the City’s Human Services
Program and funds from Keep Fort Collins Great. There is a total deficit of over $600,000 in
unfunded requests.
Kay Rios, CDBG Chairperson, discussed funding recommendations. Union Place, an affordable
housing project, is recommended to be funded after concerns were addressed by staff. The Fort
Collins Housing Authority’s land acquisition application was not granted funding as the project does
not have City entitlement or a tax credit deal.
Robert Ross, 201 7th Street, Boulder, Union Place project architect, read a letter from Donna Merton
thanking the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission for recommending approval
of its funding request. The Union Place project is going to be used as a national green affordable
housing model to be replicated across the country.
Linda Preston, BASE Camp Executive Director, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for
recommending approval of its funding request.
Bill Stout, Women’s Resource Center, thanked staff and the Human Services Commission for
recommending it receive its funding request which will go toward a low-cost dental program.
Whitney Johnson, Matthews House Case Manager, thanked the CDBG Commission for
recommending approval of its funding request.
Pat Parker, Crossroads Safe House Director, thanked staff for assistance with the grant writing
process and thanked the CDBG Commission for recommending approval of its funding request
which will provide partial funding for four advocates assisting victims of domestic violence.
Councilmember Manvel asked when the Union Place project should be discussed. Waido replied
Council will make the final decision as to whether competitive process funds will be used as part
of the complex financial package that will help subsidize the development of the project. If
approved tonight, dollars will not be allocated until it is certain the project has the entitlements and
other funding it needs to proceed.
412
July 19, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern about distortion of the process should Council vote to
approve funding for the Union Place project. He stated the project is completely different from the
one considered by the CDBG and the URA.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Union Place project set to be funded with the recommendations
is the same project reviewed by the CDBG Board. Waido replied the proposal was for $750,000 for
103 affordable units. Since the proposal was submitted, the tax credits and need to add the 55
market rate units have changed. There have been previous occasions where Council has determined
a project is not ready to receive an allocation on the current cycle. Delaying a decision on this
$750,000 would result in either the City holding onto the dollars or using them in the next program
year.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted a memo from staff indicated the CDBG Board reviewed a different
proposal.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Board for its work deliberating the proposals. She
asked if the decision by the CDBG Commissioners to support the project with changes was
unanimous. Ms. Rios replied the Commission offered a majority vote to support the project with
its requested funding.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the funds would be lost if Council delayed a vote on this particular
project. Waido replied federal regulations exist regarding the amount of CDBG funds the City can
carry over. However, it would be possible for the project to resubmit for funds as part of the
process.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the lack of tax credits for the Fort Collins Housing Authority
land acquisition. Ms. Rios replied the project has not yet secured tax credits.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the project has a geothermal component. Waido replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell noted this project is one of two geothermal projects in the City which have
not yet come out of the ground. Mr. Ross replied the project has physically been at a standstill over
the last year; however, a great deal of work has been going into preparing the application for the tax
credits.
Councilmember Troxell asked when the applicant knew the 9% tax credit was not going to happen.
Mr. Ross replied that was discovered at the end of April. It was one of the most competitive years
in history for Colorado Finance Housing Authority funding requests.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the security of the project’s funding sources and whether the project
has received its funds from the Division of Housing. Mr. Ross replied he was uncertain.
413
July 19, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the status of the 4% tax credits. Mr. Ross replied they are in the
process of being completed and the process is non-competitive.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the developers were given an explanation for the project not receiving
the 9% tax credits. Mr. Ross stated there were no definitive explanations given.
Christina Vincent, Urban Renewal Authority Redevelopment Program Administrator, stated this
project has been in the works since 2008 and was among a few other URA projects with funding
problems for vertical construction. The economic viability of the project was not coming together
beginning in 2010. Given the $4 million that has already been invested in the project, staff members
are of the opinion that the developers have been compliant with direction from staff. They do need
to appear before the URA Board again and go through the major amendment process for the
proposed project changes.
Mayor Weitkunat noted finances will need to come from a variety of sources; however, it is
important to know the financial structure is in place. The CDBG funds are representing the
community commitment to the affordable housing aspect of the project.
Waido noted it is important for other investors to see a local financial commitment, and, should the
project not be completed, the $750,000 will come back.
Councilmember Horak asked about the change in the number of affordable units. Vincent replied
the URA Board approved 89 units, 40% of which were affordable. The number of affordable units
has increase to 103.
Councilmember Horak asked what concerns and thoughts the CDBG Commissioners had regarding
the project changes. Ms. Rios replied these types of projects often have changes and the money
would be returned if the project was not completed. Jeff Taylor, CDBG Boardmember, stated the
Board noted the project includes a large number of units at the lowest AMI. Market units are
frequently added to maintain the economic viability of a project. It is vital that the City show
financial support. Additionally, the private partnership is critical.
Councilmember Horak asked about the process for the major amendment. Waido replied staff will
make a recommendation based on the application and a hearing officer will make a decision
following a public hearing. An appeal of that decision would result in a hearing before Council.
The hearing will likely be held in the next two to three months.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if a process exists by which Council could postpone tonight’s
decision but not have to wait until the fall competitive process for the project to return. Waido
replied Council’s decision tonight will be used to complete the annual plan to submit to HUD.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-063.
414
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak commended the CDBG process and the Board’s vetting of the applications
and noted the importance of affordable housing in the community.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion despite the legitimate process questions
and noted the URA Board will have the ability to approve the project. He thanked the CDBG Board
for its work on the applications.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Board for its service and the applicants for their work
in the community.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the community’s non-profits and other social service
organizations. She stated she would not support the motion based on the process issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if there are funds left over in any of the categories. Waido replied
all of the available funding is being recommended to be allocated.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion given the process issues.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this is a competitive process and funds need to be used to gain other funds.
Affordable housing projects should be isolated from the Development Review process as the need
is greater for the projects to exist.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated standards should not be lessened for lower income residents.
Mayor Weitkunat clarified the process for Community Development Block Grants should be
separate from the Development Review process.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 096, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-064. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
415
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 097, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-065. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
At the July 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Council adopted on First Reading, two ordinances which
appropriate funding to continue construction on the new Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science
Center facility. Ordinance No. 087, 2011, adopted 5-2 (nays: Kottwitz, Ohlson) appropriates $1.5
million from General Fund reserves to the capital project. Council amended the original ordinance
from $3 million to $1.5 million. Ordinance No. 088, 2011, adopted 6-1 (nays: Kottwitz)
appropriates $875,000 from Water Fund reserves to the Non-profit Corporation as a loan. These
ordinances will keep the museum project moving forward for several months and avoid a costly
work stoppage.
The building project is experiencing a $3,875,000 cash flow issue from two sources. The Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) has committed $3 million for the building but funds are not currently
available. The Non-profit Corporation has raised $4,561,916 of which $875,000 is in the form of
pledges to be paid between 2011 and 2014. The two Ordinances allow construction to continue for
several months. This additional time allows Council to consider the Building Community Choices
reserve at the July 12 work session and other potential funding mechanisms; review the next few
416
July 19, 2011
months of sales tax; and the DDA will receive its certification from the County in August, providing
key data to determine when its $3 million commitment can be paid to the project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Through Council’s support, the Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science Center (DSC)
joined together to create an exceptional new museum experience and facility. In 2005, Council
included the new museum in the Building on Basics (BOB) capital program, which received strong
voter support. BOB provided $6.183 million for the project and required DSC to provide at least
$3.6 million in matching funds. The DSC (which has transitioned into the Museum Non-Profit
Corporation (NPC)) has raised more than $8 million to date, far exceeding their original $3.6
million commitment.
BOB also provides $200,000 annually for seven years for operation and maintenance of the new
facility. The BOB operations and maintenance dollars will end after seven years of operations. The
current plan to replace these funds is to continue to build the institutional endowment over the next
seven years to generate enough income to cover the $200,000 BOB operations and maintenance
dollars.
BUILDING
The building construction project is experiencing a $3,875,000 cash flow problem. Two significant
sources of funding are currently not available to pay into the construction project, which began on
August 16, 2010 and is slated for completion in November 2011.
Council adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 087, 2011, for $1.5 million and Ordinance No.
088, 2011, for $875,000, totaling $2,375,000 to keep the museum project moving forward for several
months and avoid a costly work stoppage.
To default on a construction contract would have an impact on the City’s bond rating, and could
have a significant impact on the City’s reputation with contractors with the potential result of fewer
firms willing to bid to the City and increased bids on future projects.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) committed $3 million for the building but the funds
are not currently available. The DDA is exploring funding options but will not have the funding in
2011. The Museum Non-profit Corporation (NPC) has committed $4,561,916 to the museum
building, with $875,000 of that amount in the form of pledges. These pledges will be paid between
2011 and 2014 and are not available to fund the project now.
Ordinance No. 087, 2011 appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund to the capital project.
Council amended the Ordinance for Second Reading from $3 million to $1.5 million. This funding
covers half of the DDA’s $3 million commitment, but is not a loan to the DDA. The DDA will
receive its certification from the County in August, providing key data to determine when and how
the DDA will issue bonds for this and other upcoming DDA projects. It is possible the City could
417
July 19, 2011
be the purchaser of the DDA’s bonds. The remaining $1.5 million will be needed in several months
to complete the construction project. On First Reading, Council asked if the funding source could
be a source other than the General Fund. Building Community Choices remaining balance is
another possible source.
Ordinance No. 088, 2011, approves an $875,000 loan to the NPC to cover pledges made to the
project. The loan details are attached as an Exhibit to the Ordinance, and include a 3.5% interest
rate (prime rate of 3.25% plus .25%) with a payout schedule starting in 2012 and ending in 2014.
EXHIBITS
Council did not adopt on First Reading, Ordinance No. 089, 2011, to loan the NPC an additional
$1.2 million to cover pledges designated specifically for fabrication of exhibits for the new facility.
There are eleven themed areas in the master exhibit plan. Three themed areas are funded through
designated donations that have been paid: music and sound, science, and natural areas. The $1.2
million for the remaining zones is in the form of pledges to be paid between 2012 and 2017. NPC
continues to explore private bridge loans to cover the pledges. Interest rates will be higher than
what the City could provide, which will decrease the amount of funding available for exhibit
fabrication. If a loan cannot be secured, the remaining zones will be phased into the gallery as
pledges are paid, between 2012 and 2017.
Council asked if staff would be adding to the bottom line of the total exhibit costs if the exhibits were
phased in over time. The bottom line will see a 10 – 20% increase by phasing the exhibits. The
percentage moves toward 20% as the phases are spread farther apart over time.
On First Reading, Council requested a list of the top 4 or 5 operation and maintenance costs,
besides staffing, for the new facility. These items include:
• Utilities – estimated at $42,600 annually (based on modeling projections that could change
according to the actual use of the building and future costs of utilities)
• Custodial, trash and recycling – estimated at $59,000
• Maintenance and repair – estimated at $55,000 year one (Primarily HVAC, electrical,
preventive maintenance inspections, filters, etc. not covered under warranty. This number
will ratchet up as warranties expire and the building begins to age)
• Grounds maintenance/snow removal - estimated at $18,500
Council also directed staff to fill all three available City appointed seats on the NPC Board. Staff
will work with the City Manager to appoint the two vacant seats as soon as possible.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Ordinance No. 087, 2011, appropriates $1,500,000 in the General Fund to cover construction of
the Museum building. The DDA’s pledge has already been appropriated in the Capital Projects
fund, however the project is underway and it is unable to make payment at this time.
418
July 19, 2011
To fund its pledge, the DDA plans to seek external financing. In that scenario the amount of
available reserves in the General Fund at the end of 2012 are forecasted to exceed the policy
minimum by $7,500,000. If, however, the DDA instead asks the City for a loan, and the loan is
granted, available reserves above the policy minimum will be $4.5 million.
Ordinance No. 088, 2011 authorizes $875,000 in the Water Fund to be loaned to the NPC. The NPC
building commitments have already been appropriated in the project, however the project is
underway and they are unable to make payment at this time. The NPC has building pledges equal
to their commitment but the pledges will come in installments through 2014. The Water fund
currently has reserves that exceed its policy minimums allowing it to make this loan. The proposed
terms are 3.5% annual interest and $875,000 in principal to be paid according to the loan
agreement.”
Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director, discussed the Ordinances and Council’s First Reading
approvals. Councilmember Horak has added an amendment for consideration tonight to add back
$1.5 million to Ordinance No. 087, 2011, to cover the DDA’s commitment in total. The third
Ordinance heard on First Reading was not passed but could be brought back before Council at its
direction.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested there is no guarantee that tax increment collected
by the Downtown Development Authority will be applied to this project. He made comparisons
between the museum and the RMI2 project and stated there was no governance of the RMI2 project
at all.
Annette Geiselman, Discovery Science Center Director, thanked Council for adopting Ordinance
No. 088, 2011, on First Reading. She discussed community support for the museum.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 087, 2011 as amended, Option A, on Second Reading.
City Attorney Roy read the Ordinance changes into the record.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he has had several meetings with staff over the last year regarding
this issue in which staff was unaware of certain changes. He asked what assurance exists that the
governance model and communication to Council will be improved. City Manager Atteberry replied
staff is reviewing its processes to ensure these types of communication issues do not occur again.
He stated he is personally going to sit on the Board of Directors of the Non-Profit Corporation
(NPC) for a significant period of time.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why the City only filled one of its allotted three positions on the
Board. City Manager Atteberry replied those positions will be filled moving forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern with 25% of the permanent exhibit space being dedicated
to music. Stilwell replied an exhibit design master plan firm was hired to determine what the
419
July 19, 2011
exhibits should be and the building was designed around those exhibits. Those exhibits fall into
eleven thematic areas, one of which is music and sound.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern with the relatively little amount of exhibit space being
dedicated to sustainability and energy. Stilwell replied the exhibits are designed to be a cohesive
experience with music having its own area primarily due to electric needs. Other areas incorporate
several themes and sustainability is discussed throughout the exhibit space.
Councilmember Horak asked if the exhibits were influenced by donors. Stilwell replied in the
negative.
Councilmember Kottwitz noted the early childhood section of the museum has not yet been funded.
Marty Heffernan, Director of Culture, Parks, Recreation, and Environment, clarified the space for
that exhibit is part of the construction; however, the fundraising for the actual exhibits has not yet
occurred.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how the exhibits and fundraising were prioritized. Stilwell replied
the early childhood piece is a discreet area that can be completed at a later time.
City Manager Atteberry suggested that piece is a prime opportunity for seeking specific donors.
Stilwell discussed other areas of the museum yet to be completely funded including the digital dome,
the early childhood area, and some thematic exhibit areas.
Councilmember Horak asked how much funding the early childhood area is expected to need.
Stilwell replied approximately $450,000 is needed.
Councilmember Horak suggested an independent review of the exhibit space allocations be held and
stated the Board should no longer be able to appoint boardmembers.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she supports the project but would not support the motion as
citizens may not have intended to spend an additional $3 million on the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed support for the project but stated there has been undue influence
by donors. Appropriate recognition for donors is necessary; however, one large corporate logo is
not suitable for a project 70% funded by public dollars. Ms. Geiselman replied donor recognition
guidelines, approved by City Manager Atteberry, have been accurately followed.
City Manager Atteberry asked for a brief description of donor recognition. Ms. Geiselman replied
a $1 million donation will afford the donor the recognition opportunity of an exhibit theme. All
donor recognition will be artfully and tastefully completed with a great deal of sensitivity to
avoiding advertisements.
420
July 19, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the sponsorship recognition at the Gardens on Spring Creek has
improved as it was previously distracting. Heffernan replied the individual recognitions were too
prominent and staff has been consulted.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 088, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-066
Approving an Agreement Between the City and Avago Technologies US, Inc. to
Provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 4 Retrofit, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution approves a Business Investment Agreement between the City and Avago
Technologies. The Agreement provides two performance based investments: (1) a one-time use tax
rebate on manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the expansion; and (2) a personal property
tax rebate on the same equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would
not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the City. The total investment package
has a value of approximately $3.2 million and includes both local and state investments. The total
value of the use tax and personal property constitutes $2.912 million of the package value. NOTE:
The value of the package has increased since the Council Finance Committee briefing on July 5,
2011. The increase is due to additional investment in manufacturing equipment by Avago.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2005, the City Council adopted the first Economic Action Plan to provide staff focus and
direction regarding efforts to enhance the local economy. The Action Plan contains four key
strategies: (1) job creation through business retention, expansion, incubation, and attraction; (2)
be proactive on economic issues; (3) build partnerships; and (4) diversify the economy.
Furthermore, City Council has given consistent and clear direction that all investment agreements
be performance based.
In 2006, the City commissioned a study to evaluate the geographic concentration and
interconnectedness of companies within the community in order to determine potential industry
421
July 19, 2011
clusters. The study identified several existing and emerging industry clusters. The identified
clusters were modified into five targeted industry clusters, which became the focus of job creation
activities. These clusters included: Clean Energy, Bioscience, Chip Design, Software, and Uniquely
Fort Collins.
On August 17, 2010, the City adopted Resolution 2010-055, authorizing and directing the City
Manager to continue to support on behalf of the City participation in the formation and development
of cluster initiatives relating to the identified targeted industries of the City, to work with regional
partners and local business entities to develop strategic plans for the clusters, and to support the
advancement of the plans as they are implemented for the purpose of primary job retention,
expansion, and creation.
Avago Technologies has a 50-year history of innovation dating back to origins within Hewlett-
Packard Company (HP). The company began as HP's components division back in the early 1960s
and thrived there for three decades. When HP spun off Agilent Technologies in 1999, the company
became Agilent's Semiconductor Products Group (SPG) and expanded into new markets and
applications. In late 2005, SPG was acquired by several private equity partners and Avago
Technologies was founded. Over the years, Avago has assembled a team of over 1,000 design and
product engineers and maintains highly collaborative design and product development resources
around the world that have resulted in the development of numerous groundbreaking technologies.
The Business Investment Agreement being offered to Avago Technologies is consistent with both the
Action Plan strategies and City Council direction:
• The proposed Business Investment Agreement rebates tax revenues generated by the project;
without the project these revenues would not be received by the City.
• The Economic Action Plan clearly identifies business retention and expansion as the primary
goal for the City’s job creation efforts over business attraction; the proposed expansion
supports this goal.
• Plan Fort Collins call for creating a diversity of jobs that enables citizens and businesses
to thrive; the proposed expansion provides an array of jobs and salary ranges. Most
importantly, the expansion brings back much needed high-tech manufacturing jobs.
PROJECT OVERIVEW
Avago Technologies plans to expand its wafer manufacturing, which currently occurs only in
Taiwan. The company evaluated expansion at facilities in Taiwan, Italy, and Fort Collins. Avago
Technologies selected the City for expansion for several reasons, including: (1) low power costs,
(2) progressive utilities willing to assist in the modernization of plant operations related to power
and water consumption, and (3) a Business Investment Agreement as described in detail below. This
expansion represents an opportunity to bring a type of chip manufacturing to Fort Collins that has
occurred primarily off-shore.
422
July 19, 2011
The wafer fabrication expansion includes:
• The retrofit of the existing Building 4 (approximately 10,000 square feet);
• $17 million in retrofit construction costs;
• $57.5 million in wafer manufacturing equipment;
• $5.7 million in equipment installation;
• An increase in water use of approximately 20.0 million gallons, an estimated 10 percent
increase (equivalent to annual consumption of approximately 300 average homes; no
anticipated impact on peak demand or the physical plant); and
• An increase of approximately 1.0 megawatts of electric capacity (equivalent to annual
consumption of approximately 500 average homes; no anticipated impact on peak demand
or the physical plant).
Furthermore, the proposed expansion is anticipated to add approximately 92 jobs including:
• 8 Engineers earning approximately $100,000 annually;
• 14 Technicians earning approximately $70,000 annually; and
• 70 Operators earning approximately $40,000 annually.
BUSINESS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
On April 22, 2011, Economic Health Office staff provided Avago Technologies with an offer of
assistance to support the retrofit of Building 4 for wafer fabrication (Attachment 1). The package
was submitted to Avago Technologies confidentially. The item was scheduled for Council Finance
Committee consideration (July 5, 2011) and City Council action (July 19, 2011). The meetings were
scheduled after the Colorado Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered a request for
assistance from its Strategic Fund. The EDC requests that all potential assistance packages remain
confidential until it has an opportunity to consider the request. The EDC considered the request on
June 16, 2011. The Council Finance Committee meetings and City Council action were scheduled
shortly after this meeting in consultation with the City Manager.
The City of Fort Collins uses a variety of local investments to assist primary employers with
expansion efforts. The total value of the proposed investment package is approximately $3.2 million
and includes both local and state investments ($2.9 million in local investments and $300,000 in
state investments). The package includes the following items:
• $1.725 million in Equipment Use Tax rebate on the initial manufacturing equipment
investment associated with the project
• Approximately $817,000 in Personal Property Tax savings on manufacturing equipment
over a 10 year period
• Expedited review and commitment by City staff to Avago’s desired timeline
• Free Integrated Design Assistance valued at $20,000 to improve operating efficiencies
• Assistance with building re-commissioning, valued at up to $150,000 to maximize building
efficiency and reduce utility costs
423
July 19, 2011
• Implementation of the evaporative cooling credit against sewer costs, creating
approximately $20,000 annually or a total of $200,000 over ten years
• $230,000 in Colorado Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) Strategic Fund
assistance (subject to Board approval); and
• $73,600 in Colorado FIRST Customized Job Training Funds.
The Utility items listed above are available to any company within Fort Collins, whether expanding
or continuing operations. They have been included in the package description because the
competition may not offer similar utility assistance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economic and Regional Economist at Colorado State
University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of Avago Technologies planned expansion
(Attachment 2). The following summarizes that analysis:
• New equipment will generate approximately $1.725 million in use tax revenue (offset by
investment package)
• The same equipment will generate approximately $163,000 in annual personal property tax
revenue of $1.63 million over the ten year agreement period (partially offset by investment
package)
• Construction activity ($17 million retrofit and $5.7 million equipment installation) will
support 228 direct jobs and 74 spin-off jobs throughout the anticipated 15-month
construction period
• Construction will generate approximately $323,400 in use tax revenue on materials
• The 92 new jobs will support an additional 155 in spin-off secondary jobs at an average
salary of $48,900
• The 92 new jobs will generate approximately $554,000 in sales tax revenue and $413,000
in property tax revenue over the next ten years; and
• The EIA recognizes additional sales tax and property tax revenue will be generated by the
spin-off jobs; however, the analysis provides a conservative estimate of economic impact
and does not estimate these revenues.
The proposed Business Investment Agreement will have the following impacts on the City of Fort
Collins finances:
• All of the estimated $1.725 million in use tax revenue collected on the purchase of the wafer
fabrication equipment will be rebated
• Half of the estimated $163,000 in annual Personal Property Tax revenue collected on the
wafer fabrication equipment will be rebated for ten years for a total of approximately
$817,000
• Utilities will invest approximately $170,000 in one-time energy and water efficiency design
assistance
424
July 19, 2011
• In addition, Avago will take advantage of the new evaporative cooling credit offered by the
Fort Collins Utilities for a total savings of $200,000 over the course of ten years
• However, the City would not have collected Use Tax or Personal Property Tax revenue if
the expansion had occurred in Italy or Taiwan.
• Net impact of the Business Investment Agreement is approximately $1.755 million, as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Revenue, Rebate, and Net Revenue
Revenue Estimated Revenue Rebate/
Incentive
Net Revenue
One-Time Items
Construction Use Tax $323,000 $0 $323,000
Equipment Use Tax 1 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $0
Integrated Design Assistance $0 $20,000 ($20,000)
Building Re-commissioning $0 $150,000 ($150,000)
Subtotal $2,048,000 $1,895,000 $153,000
On-Going Items (Cumulative over 10 Years)
Equipment Personal Property Tax $1,630,000 $817,000 $817,000
Spin Off Sales Tax $554,000 $0 $554,000
Spin Off Property Tax $413,000 $0 $413,000
Evaporative Cooling Credit $0 $200,000 ($200,000)
Subtotal $$2,597,000 $1,017,000 $1,602,000
Total $4,645,000 $2,912,000 $1,755,000
1 Current City Code allows for a rebate of 1.5 percent of the 3.0 percent use tax. The
proposed Business Investment Agreement increases the rebate to the full 3.0 percent;
therefore the incentive provides a value of $727,500 above current Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Avago plans to make the following system upgrades as part of the retrofit of Building 4:
• A site-wide HVAC retrofit.
• A "free heating" project, which utilizes waste heat from HVAC Chillers to reheat incoming
outside air for Building 4. Similar to a Building 2 upgrade that reduced natural gas
consumption on site by approximately 5%.
• Purchase and installation of a high efficiency chiller sized to handle the building’s base load
conditions (in winter) and run at optimum performance.
• Replace two boilers with two new very high efficiency condensing boilers matched to the
building’s base load, which avoids running boilers to big to run efficiently.
425
July 19, 2011
Based on the Fort Collins Utility assistance , the upgrades will help to reach 3 million kilowatt-
hours of annual savings. This savings in energy consumption will have the following environmental
benefits:
• The project would comprise 14% of the City’s annual efficiency savings goal;
• The project would avoid 2119 metric tons of carbon emissions annually; and
• The carbon emissions savings are equivalent to the annual emissions of 415 cars or 264
homes or the amount of carbon sequestered by 54,333 tree seedlings grown for ten years.”
Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, discussed the project at Avago and noted the Fort Collins site was
selected for the expansion over sites in Taiwan and Italy. Construction will begin in earnest soon
and the facility should be operational by next fall. An economic impact analysis was completed by
a Colorado State University economist. The appraisal estimated the project would generate $1.725
million in use tax revenues, $1.38 million in personal property tax, and approximately 228 direct
construction industry jobs for approximately 15 months. Additionally, 92 primary jobs would
generate approximately $500,000 in sales tax revenue over 10 years. The net value of the business
agreement is an approximately $730,000 additional rebate on top of the standing rebates outlined
in City Code.
Glenn Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, expressed concern the City has been providing too many
financial incentives for private industry. The City should consider providing financial incentives
based on need rather than simple requests.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed water and power use of the new facility.
Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde, expressed concern the proposed expansion will negatively affect
neighboring homes and presented a petition signed by seven of those homes.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for a staff perspective of the operations. Birks replied Building 4, in which
some manufacturing occurs, is approximately 40,000 square feet total; only 10,000 square feet of
which is occupied. This expansion would include an additional 10,000 square feet of manufacturing
space thereby still leaving half of the building vacant.
Steve Wolley, Avago Facilities Manager, stated this development is entirely interior with no
additional exterior construction. He stated neighborhood concerns had previously been addressed
by construction of a wall to block out sound and interior lighting structure changes. There are
further changes which could be made if needed.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would approach Hewlett Packard with the neighborhood concerns
as well.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the means of communication between Avago and neighbors. Mr.
Wolley replied the concerns have been heard and will certainly be addressed.
426
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw asked how policies at Avago could change to ensure the company is being
the best neighbor possible. Mr. Wolley replied interior lighting can be managed by lighting systems
rather than users. A physical solution will need to be developed for noise mitigation.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Mr. Wolley would personally be willing to have somewhat regular
meetings with neighbors. Mr. Wolley replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell asked why Fort Collins residents should care about Avago’s products. Mr.
Wolley replied this facility makes cell phone parts, which are sold worldwide, as well as other
products.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-066.
Councilmember Poppaw supported the project and thanked Mr. Wolley for his presence and
responses.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how the projected water and electricity usage could not affect supply.
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied the increase will have no impact on
the plant infrastructure or available capacity.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to see more information in the future in terms of the
costs, or potential negative impacts of these types of business agreements.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested salary ranges be provided when projected jobs are discussed.
Councilmember Troxell asked if distributed energy generation would be part of this project. Mr.
Wolley replied Building Four will operate on a “free heating” scenario. Various conservation
activities, such as warming water to room temperature using the waste heat off chillers, will
continue. Efficiencies are the least expensive, most effective way for industry to beat the carbon
emissions problem.
Councilmember Troxell asked if any integration of on-site energy use has occurred to help shift
peak. Mr. Wolley replied electric needs basically never cease; however, generators are run during
peak hours to help offset some peak time demand.
Councilmember Manvel supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for actively pursuing this project and commended Mr.
Wolley for his service to the community.
427
July 19, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council has always supported expansion and retention of existing primary
businesses and thanked Mr. Wolley for his commitment to the business and community.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry discussed the possible movement of the remaining agenda items, the
Executive Session, and the URA Meeting to other dates.
Mayor Weitkunat led a brief discussion of the items yet to be heard.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to postpone Item
Nos. 17, 18, and 19, Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and Updating Related City Code
References, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained
in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals
to the City Council, and Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the
Conduct of City Council Meetings, to a date to be determined by the Leadership Team and City
Manager. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to extend the meeting
in order to consider Item Nos. 9, 16, and 29, Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in
Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of
Electric Generation Facilities, Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power Arrangement for the
Water Treatment Facility, and Resolution 2011-067 Creating a Council Futures Committee.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about moving forward with the items at the late hour.
Councilmember Poppaw suggested future examination of agendas to attempt to eliminate these
situations.
Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to postpone Item
Nos. 9 and 29, Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the
Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation
Facilities and Resolution 2011-067 Creating a Council Futures Committee to a date to be
determined by the Leadership Team and City Manager.
428
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak suggested continuing all appropriate items to an adjourned meeting on July
26th.
Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew the motion.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on July 26, 2011, to consider all business not considered on July 19, 2011, and to consider
going into Executive Session.
City Manager Atteberry suggested Item Nos. 16 and 29 be heard on July 26, 2011, with the
remaining business to be heard in August or September.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
429
July 19, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 19, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Chuck Washington, 1125 Deercraft Court, spoke regarding expenditure of surplus funds and
encouraged reinstituting Dial-a-Ride services in the southeast part of town.
Chantel Havre, 1705 Remington Street, Community for Sustainable Energy, discussed sustainable
energy in Fort Collins and thanked Councilmembers for their service.
Peggy Loonan, 708 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding the City appeal process and opposed
current practices of staff in that process.
Laurence Budd, 1442 Glen Haven Drive, discussed FCPAN, the Fort Collins public access channel
and requested that the rejection of a certain medical program be examined.
Joan Black, 1206 Canvasback Court, thanked Councilmember Horak for his response regarding
Dial-a-Ride access and supported expanding access further south.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed the staff recommendation regarding Item No.
19, Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council
Meetings.
Pam Jennings, Disabled Resource Services, 424 Pine Street, thanked Council and the Fort Collins
CDBG Commission for fully funding the Disabled Resources Services funding request.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, showed a video of Steve Catanach, Light and Power
Operations Manager, stating Council had vetted the business case for the Smart Meter project. Mr.
Sutherland alleged that is not a true statement.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, thanked Councilmember Troxell for pulling the alley naming
issue off the July 5, 2011 Consent Calendar. He suggested alternative names of Will Schwartz, Otto
Warner, and Gale Hilgenberg.
397
July 19, 2011
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, discussed inconsistencies between the City’s bicycle policies
and the Land Use Code. He offered several suggestions to improve the situation including the
creation of a Bike Overlay Zone within 1.5 miles of CSU’s campus.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, discussed Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095,
2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council. She supported the
Ordinance as it would allow site visits by Council.
Jonathan Feiman, 959 Gilgalad Way, opposed staff’s role in the preparation of Agenda Item
Summaries for appeals of land use decisions.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat spoke on behalf of City employees in response to Mr. Sutherland’s accusations.
She spoke to the honesty, integrity, ethics, and quality work of City staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with Mayor Weitkunat and spoke to the integrity of staff.
Councilmember Manvel requested an explanation regarding Mr. Budd’s question about the public
access channel programming.
Councilmember Horak requested an examination of the current Dial-a-Ride system and feedback
regarding concerns. He asked for numerical data supporting the Smart Meter program and for an
explanation of the appeal process that can be shared with citizens.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked Mr. Washington and Ms. Black for their input regarding the
southeast connections for Dial-a-Ride. She stated she would like to see Transfort and Dial-a-Ride
as two separate issues in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested all available information regarding the context of the decision to
decrease Dial-a-Ride services, which had been above and beyond federal standards previously.
Councilmember Horak requested an analysis of the distribution of available funds with respect to
possibly increasing Dial-a-Ride services.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there are revised Ordinances for Item Nos. 18 and 26, First Reading
of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council and
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project. Item No. 28, First
Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of Chapter
2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy
Board, is recommended to be withdrawn to the August 16, 2011 meeting.
398
July 19, 2011
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority provides funds to the Fort Collins Police Services
to be used for equipment and training to process E911 calls. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates those funds.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates capital
project funding for the Utilities to relocate existing electric, water and wastewater facilities
to accommodate the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. Light and Power
will also supply power to the bus stations along the corridor.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and Other
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, appropriates an
$85,000 awarded by Great Outdoors Colorado has awarded for the completion of the Hughes
Stadium Disc Golf Course. The project involves the development of an 18-hole disc golf
course at Hughes Stadium in conjunction with Colorado State University. The course is
primarily located in the stormwater detention basin directly west of Overland Trail Road.
The course will include new trees and shrubs, a new access road off County Road No. 42C,
and the course tee areas and baskets.
9. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and
Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the
City Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System.
399
July 19, 2011
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor
revisions to the definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of
the City Code and the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of
General Manager, clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and
clarification regarding authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements
on behalf of the City. Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to
the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements contained in the City’s
Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other requirements for
interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, calls a Special
Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County
Coordinated Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred
issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to place any measures on the ballot it
would need to do so no later than at its August 16 meeting. If Council does not take action
by ordinance or resolution before the statutory deadline (September 2) to certify ballot
language to Larimer County, the election will be cancelled and the provisions of this
Ordinance will be of no further force and effect.
This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 1, 2011 ballot.
However, a group of citizens is currently circulating an initiative petition proposing a
prohibition on the establishment, operation or licensing of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product
manufacturing within the city of Fort Collins. The deadline to submit the petition to the City
Clerk’s Office is July 19, 2011. Adoption of this Ordinance is a required step in preserving
the option for City Council to submit the initiated ordinance, and/or any other ballot
measures that Council may desire, at the November 1, 2011 Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Access Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
To complete the process of improving Rawhide Flats Road, the City has requested that
Larimer County vacate sections of road right-of-way that were abandoned in 2008 when the
road was realigned and reconstructed by the City to provide access to Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area. The County conditioned its approval of the road improvements on the City’s
400
July 19, 2011
follow up to request this vacation in order to stop the unnecessary public use of the old
abandoned road areas and to allow the land to revert to the surrounding landowner(s). Once
the sections of right-of-way are vacated, the ownership will revert to the adjacent
landowners. In connection with the vacation of the unneeded sections of right-of-way, the
City is proposing to transfer to the County six new right-of-way easements that the City
acquired to build the realigned portions of the improved road. This transfer will establish
that the easements are held by Larimer County as public road easements for Rawhide Flats
Road along with the other segments of the Road, and that the right-of-way being vacated is
no longer needed.
The City has also asked the County to vacate any remaining public road rights-of-way within
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. This action will establish that Rawhide Flats Road north
of the Natural Area boundary line is a private road owned by the City for the sole purpose
of providing access to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. There are currently three property
owners with in-holding properties within Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. When this section
of Rawhide Flats Road is vacated, these owners will lose their legal access to their
properties. In order to continue to provide these owners legal access to their property, the
City will need to grant each owner an access easement from the boundary of the Natural
Area to their property line. The access easements will follow the same alignment as the
existing road on the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. These Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
Capstone Development Corporation is planning a mixed use development. The project area
is 10.4 acres and is located near Stuart Street and College Avenue. It fronts College Avenue
around the Discount Tire property and continues to the west to the railroad. The project area
is also at the rear of the Dairy Queen property. This mixed use development is for student
housing and retail space. It will have two buildings, 221 dwelling units and 8,000 square
feet of new retail space. The retail space will be the first floor of the building fronting on
South College Avenue.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, authorizes a
drainage easement for construction of a new flood control channel, a drainage easement for
sheet flows from the adjoining property, and a temporary construction easement to construct
a pedestrian trail and an underground stormwater pipe on City-owned property known as
Creekside Park.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire
Homes, LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
Solitaire Homes, LLC is planning a 27 acre (approximately) development north and west of
Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road, opposite the Poudre School District offices. This
401
July 19, 2011
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, authorizes a 438 square
foot public trail easement from the City across City property managed by the Water Utility
to facilitate a planned trail within the development.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves
for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank
Program. All of the authorized expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for
which the dollars were originally appropriated could not be completed during 2010.
Reappropriation of $295,821 is necessary for completion of the projects in 2011. These
unexpended monies lapsed into the General Fund balance at the end of 2010 and reflect no
change in Council policies.
15. Items Relating to the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and LaPorte Avenue Bridge
Replacement.
A. Resolution 2011-058 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation for the Construction of the Shields Street
Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
from the Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund
for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department has been awarded three grants from the
federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932. This funding
contract between the City and Colorado Department of Transportation is for the replacement
of two structurally deficient bridges owned by the City. The two bridges are Shields Street
Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, and Laporte Avenue Bridge over the Arthur Ditch.
16. Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power Arrangement for the Water Treatment Facility.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power
Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment
Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
B. Resolution 2011-059 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to a Selected Solar Provider
for the Use of the City Water Treatment Facility Property for a Solar Project.
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a
portion of electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will
design, construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This
Ordinance allows for a 20-year contract between the system developer and the City. The
402
July 19, 2011
Resolution issues a revocable permit for use of a portion of land onsite of the Water
Treatment Facility by the photovoltaic system developer.
17 .Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and Updating Related City Code References.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of
the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of
the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
In an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide
options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these
Code amendments will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six (6) inch
height limit. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalo grass, and
they would have a height limit of twelve (12) inches.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing
Appeals to the City Council.
This Ordinance changes the timing for the scheduling of appeal hearings and for requesting
site inspections and also amends the appeals procedure so as to allow the general public to
participate in the appeal hearing and to allow Councilmembers who have filed an appeal to
participate in deciding the appeal.
19. Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City
Council Meetings.
This Resolution would amend the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council
meetings with regard to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the
meetings. The 30-minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen Participation segment
of the meetings would be eliminated and two topics would be specified as not appropriate
for comment: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting and quasi-judicial matters.
20. Resolution 2011-061 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
403
July 19, 2011
21. Resolution 2011-062 Making Appointments to the Retirement Committee and the Women’s
Commission.
A vacancy currently exists on the Retirement Committee due to the resignation of Dick
Burkhartzmeyer. Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Wade Troxell reviewed the applications
on file. The interview team is recommending John Lindsay to fill the vacancy with a term
to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011.
A vacancy also exists on the Women’s Commission due to the resignation of Randi Nelson.
Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Ben Manvel and Wade Troxell conducted
interviews. The interview team is recommending Jan Hawn to fill the vacancy with a term
to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Purchase, Training and Ongoing Maintenance of the E911 and
Emergency Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Light and Power, Water and Wastewater Funds for Capital Projects to Relocate Utility
Facilities in the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project and Transferring Existing Light
and Power Appropriations into the Light and Power Utility Relocation Capital Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant and Other
Revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2011, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 1, 2011 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Access Road at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer to Larimer
County of Public Right-of-Way Easements Acquired by the City for the
Reconstruction of Rawhide Flats Road.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance, No. 084, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of
Access Easements to Three Private Land Owners within the Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Capstone
Development Corporation of Three Easements on Stormwater Utility Property at Creekside
Park.
404
July 19, 2011
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance to Solitaire
Homes, LLC of a Public Trail Easement on City Property.
26. Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort
Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves
for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields
Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
25. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human Services Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
Councilmember Horak withdrew Item Nos. 18 and 19, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011,
Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code
Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council and Resolution 2011-060
Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings.
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 17, Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and
Updating Related City Code References.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 9 and 16, Items Relating to Amendments
to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for
Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities and First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011,
405
July 19, 2011
Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider
at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak, and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for a brief description of Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance
No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of
Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and
Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement. Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital Projects Manager,
replied the item references two bridges that will be replaced using grant funds received from the
Colorado Department of Transportation. As grant money will be used, previously allocated dollars
will be used to redesign two additional deficient bridges.
Councilmember Horak suggested additional details be present when describing bridge locations.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Fort Collins has been designated as one of the best locations for tri-
athletes. Lawrence Pollack, Finance Department Systems Analyst, identified a need for and created
a Budgeting for Outcomes process network.
John Stokes presented an update regarding the Poudre River Ecological Vision, a project being
proposed by the Natural Resource Department. The project would create a high-level, yet
quantitative, ecological description of the Poudre River. Costs are expected to be relatively low with
a fair amount of volunteer work coming from Colorado State University personnel. This project is
not driven by other water projects such as Seaman Reservoir.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a similar project is being proposed for other City watersheds.
Stokes replied a group at Utilities is examining small stream systems within the City. Kevin Gertig,
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, replied those studies are an important part of
the City’s urban watershed monitoring program. A full report and assessment will be provided to
Council in the near future.
Councilmember Horak encouraged the involvement of the United States Geological Survey.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported the project and staff’s initiative in its proposal.
406
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel reported on a new brochure from the Poudre River Heritage Board. The
brochure will be available in local bookstores and discusses the history of Poudre River water
projects and provide descriptions of the River sections.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Beet Street and the City for their efforts at obtaining the National
Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant. Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director, stated the grant
will fund planning and design of an art incubator in Fort Collins.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the Finance Committee discussed the Avago project and the sales tax
rebate on food. Additionally, the Committee recommended the Downtown Development Authority
not move forward with the downtown hotel project request for proposal.
Mayor Weitkunat stated there will be a regional meeting with Loveland and Larimer County at
Harmony Library Thursday regarding connection and transportation issues. She complimented the
recent renovations to Council chambers.
Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive
Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and
Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the
City’s Human Services Program, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-063 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will
Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, the Home
Investment Partnerships Program, and the City’s Human Services Program.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-064 Approving the Fiscal Year 2011 Administration
and Project Budgets for the Home Investment Partnerships Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community
Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment
Partnerships Fund.
E. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-065 Eliminating Restrictions on the Use of Affordable
Housing Funds Currently Earmarked for the Acquisition of Former Rental Properties.
407
July 19, 2011
Resolution 2011-063 will complete the 2011 spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating
City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development
activities by listing the specific programs/projects that will receive funding starting October 1, 2011.
Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Resolution 2011-064 establishes the
major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2011 program year, which also
starts on October 1, 2011. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in
November as a result of the 2011 fall cycle of the competitive process. Ordinance No. 097, 2011,
appropriates the City’s FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Resolution
2011-065 eliminates the restriction on $60,000 of Affordable Housing Fund dollars that they be
used for the acquisition of former rental properties by first-time home buyers to allowing the funds
to be used for the purchases of non-rental properties.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2011-063 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG
funds for the FY 2011 program year (including funds from the Entitlement Grant and Program
Income), which starts on October 1, 2011; which programs and projects will receive funding from
carry-over funds from the HOME Program; and which programs will receive funding from the
City’s 2011 Human Services Program. The CDBG Commission presents to the City Council a list
of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The following table
summarizes the total amount and sources of all available CDBG, HOME, and City funds for
distribution during the spring cycle of the competitive process:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$923,469 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
61,815 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
8,883 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$2,065,454 Total Funding Available
Unprogrammed funds are funds from previous years that have yet to be allocated to specific
programs or projects. Program Income includes repayments from rehabilitation loans and home
buyer assistance loans along with repayments from development loans. Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) funds are HOME funds that need to be reserved for allocation
to agencies which qualify as CHDOs including the Fort Collins Housing Corporation, CARE
Housing, and Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Inc..
The FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income totals $994,167. HUD
regulations limit a maximum of 20% of these funds, or $198,832, for planning and program
408
July 19, 2011
administrative purposes. The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds
for planning projects and CDBG Program administrative costs:
Funding for Planning and CDBG Program Administration
AMOUNT SOURCE
$184,693 20% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
12,363 20% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,776 20% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
$198,832 Total Funding Available for Planning and CDBG Program
Administration
HUD regulations limit a maximum of 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG funds and CDBG Program
Income, or $149,124 for use in the Public Services category. The City’s 2011 Human Services
Program adds $389,601 and Human Services Program KFCG funds adds an additional $150,733,
for use in the category, for a total of $689,458 of available funding. The following table summarizes
the amount and sources of available funds for public/human service proposals:
Funding for Public/Human Services
AMOUNT SOURCE
$138,520 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
9,272 15% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,332 15% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$689,458 Total Funding Available for Public/Human Services Proposals
Considering the set-asides for Planning and Administration and Public/Human Services presented
above, the balance of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income amounts,
or $646,211, plus $191,338 of unprogrammed FY 2010 CDBG funds, $211,906 of unprogrammed
FY 2010 HOME funds, $102,381 of unprogrammed FY 2010 HOME CHDO funds, and $25,328 of
unprogrammed FY 2004 HOME CHDO funds, provide an amount of $1,177,164 available for
allocation to affordable housing proposals. The following table summarizes the amount and sources
of available funds for affordable housing proposals:
Funding for Affordable Housing
AMOUNT SOURCE
$600,256 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
40,180 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
5,775 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
409
July 19, 2011
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
$1,177,164 Total Funding Available for Affordable Housing Proposals
The City received 31 applications for funding and a staff administration request as part of the 2011
spring cycle of the competitive process requesting a total of $2,678,987. The total amount of funds
available from all sources is $2,065,454. The total of application requests is, thus, $613,533 more
than the amount of available funding. Also, HUD regulation limitations within the Public Services
category results in a total of $260,697 more in requests than available funds for the category.
Unfortunately, funds in the Planning and Administration and Affordable Housing categories can
not be used to fund any Public Service applications. The following table summarizes the amount
of funding requests compared to the amount of funding available for each of the major funding
categories.
Category
Number of
Applications
Requested
Funding
Available
Funding
Request-
Available
Difference
Affordable Housing 3 $1,530,000 $1,177,164 -$352,836
Public Services 28 $950,155 $689,458 -260,697
Administration - $198,832 $198,832 0
Totals 31 $2,678,987 $2,065,454 $-613,533
Removing Restrictions on the Use of Affordable Housing Funds in the Home Buyer Assistance
Program
The City’s Home Buyers Assistance (HBA) Program uses funding from the HOME and CDBG
federal grants and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). In the past, normal assistance has
been split with 50% coming from the HOME Program and 50% coming from the CDBG Program
(federal regulations limit the use of CDBG funds to be no more than 50% of the total assistance).
The City’s AHF dollars have been earmarked for assistance to families wishing to purchase former
rental housing units (for the use of federal funds, federal regulations require rental units to be
vacant for three months in order to avoid displacement concerns and relocation payments).
With the change in federal HOME regulations, it is now basically impossible to continue using
HOME funds as the 50% match to CDBG funds in providing down payment and closing cost
assistance in the HBA Program. Staff is suggesting that the City change its policy regarding the use
of the AHF in the HBA program, eliminating the condition that they be used only for the acquisition
of former rental units and allowing the funds to be used for any home purchase. Staff’s request is
to remove the “former rental unit only” restriction for $60,000 of AHF dollars already approved
through the competitive process for the HBA. This $60,000 could then be used to match $60,000
of CDBG funds already allocated to the HBA Program. This would still leave $84,000 of AHF to
assist first-time home buyers wishing to purchase former rental units.
410
July 19, 2011
Without the ability to use AHF as a match, assistance in the HBA would be limited to CDBG funds,
or only half the amount of assistance families would need to acquire a new home. Stated another
way, without a 50% match to CDBG funds, families would need to have between $4,000 and $5,000
of their own money to buy a home – not many low-income families have that amount of funds
available.
The CDBG Commission discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on February 10, 2011, and voted
unanimously to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment 8).
The Affordable Housing Board discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on March 3, 2011, and
voted unanimously to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment
9).
Resolution 2011-065 would eliminate the restrictions on the use of $60,000 of Affordable Housing
Funds currently earmarked for the acquisition of former rental properties and permit the funds to
be used for the acquisition of any home by a first-time home buyer.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the Home Investment Partnership
(HOME) Program provide federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City’s General Fund Budget
to address such needs. The total amount of CDBG funds available for allocation during FY 2011
is $1,185,505, while the total amount of HOME funds for FY 2011 is $644,352. Together, the
CDBG and HOME programs provide $1,829,857 of federal funds to the City. The City’s General
Fund does contribute $389,601 in the Human Services Program and $150,733 of KFCG funds for
allocation during the spring cycle, and $325,024 of Affordable Housing Fund dollars for the fall
cycle of the competitive process.
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the
community. This means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit
to economic sustainability.
Public/human service programs contribute to economic sustainability by providing such programs
as job training and child care, so workers can maintain their employment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable
housing options for lower income people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the
community instead of being forced to live outside the community and commute into the city for work.
This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
411
July 19, 2011
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green
building practices. Green building practices are being used in both new construction and major
rehabilitation of existing housing unit projects. These practices include geo-thermal applications
and other energy saving techniques.
All affordable housing projects utilizing CDBG and HOME funds are required to pass a HUD
environmental review which covers such items as noise impacts, floodplains, hazardous materials,
etc.”
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, discussed the history and aspects of the competitive process. Sources
of funding are primarily the CDBG and HOME programs as well as the City’s Human Services
Program and funds from Keep Fort Collins Great. There is a total deficit of over $600,000 in
unfunded requests.
Kay Rios, CDBG Chairperson, discussed funding recommendations. Union Place, an affordable
housing project, is recommended to be funded after concerns were addressed by staff. The Fort
Collins Housing Authority’s land acquisition application was not granted funding as the project does
not have City entitlement or a tax credit deal.
Robert Ross, 201 7th Street, Boulder, Union Place project architect, read a letter from Donna Merton
thanking the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission for recommending approval
of its funding request. The Union Place project is going to be used as a national green affordable
housing model to be replicated across the country.
Linda Preston, BASE Camp Executive Director, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for
recommending approval of its funding request.
Bill Stout, Women’s Resource Center, thanked staff and the Human Services Commission for
recommending it receive its funding request which will go toward a low-cost dental program.
Whitney Johnson, Matthews House Case Manager, thanked the CDBG Commission for
recommending approval of its funding request.
Pat Parker, Crossroads Safe House Director, thanked staff for assistance with the grant writing
process and thanked the CDBG Commission for recommending approval of its funding request
which will provide partial funding for four advocates assisting victims of domestic violence.
Councilmember Manvel asked when the Union Place project should be discussed. Waido replied
Council will make the final decision as to whether competitive process funds will be used as part
of the complex financial package that will help subsidize the development of the project. If
approved tonight, dollars will not be allocated until it is certain the project has the entitlements and
other funding it needs to proceed.
412
July 19, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern about distortion of the process should Council vote to
approve funding for the Union Place project. He stated the project is completely different from the
one considered by the CDBG and the URA.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Union Place project set to be funded with the recommendations
is the same project reviewed by the CDBG Board. Waido replied the proposal was for $750,000 for
103 affordable units. Since the proposal was submitted, the tax credits and need to add the 55
market rate units have changed. There have been previous occasions where Council has determined
a project is not ready to receive an allocation on the current cycle. Delaying a decision on this
$750,000 would result in either the City holding onto the dollars or using them in the next program
year.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted a memo from staff indicated the CDBG Board reviewed a different
proposal.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Board for its work deliberating the proposals. She
asked if the decision by the CDBG Commissioners to support the project with changes was
unanimous. Ms. Rios replied the Commission offered a majority vote to support the project with
its requested funding.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the funds would be lost if Council delayed a vote on this particular
project. Waido replied federal regulations exist regarding the amount of CDBG funds the City can
carry over. However, it would be possible for the project to resubmit for funds as part of the
process.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the lack of tax credits for the Fort Collins Housing Authority
land acquisition. Ms. Rios replied the project has not yet secured tax credits.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the project has a geothermal component. Waido replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell noted this project is one of two geothermal projects in the City which have
not yet come out of the ground. Mr. Ross replied the project has physically been at a standstill over
the last year; however, a great deal of work has been going into preparing the application for the tax
credits.
Councilmember Troxell asked when the applicant knew the 9% tax credit was not going to happen.
Mr. Ross replied that was discovered at the end of April. It was one of the most competitive years
in history for Colorado Finance Housing Authority funding requests.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the security of the project’s funding sources and whether the project
has received its funds from the Division of Housing. Mr. Ross replied he was uncertain.
413
July 19, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the status of the 4% tax credits. Mr. Ross replied they are in the
process of being completed and the process is non-competitive.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the developers were given an explanation for the project not receiving
the 9% tax credits. Mr. Ross stated there were no definitive explanations given.
Christina Vincent, Urban Renewal Authority Redevelopment Program Administrator, stated this
project has been in the works since 2008 and was among a few other URA projects with funding
problems for vertical construction. The economic viability of the project was not coming together
beginning in 2010. Given the $4 million that has already been invested in the project, staff members
are of the opinion that the developers have been compliant with direction from staff. They do need
to appear before the URA Board again and go through the major amendment process for the
proposed project changes.
Mayor Weitkunat noted finances will need to come from a variety of sources; however, it is
important to know the financial structure is in place. The CDBG funds are representing the
community commitment to the affordable housing aspect of the project.
Waido noted it is important for other investors to see a local financial commitment, and, should the
project not be completed, the $750,000 will come back.
Councilmember Horak asked about the change in the number of affordable units. Vincent replied
the URA Board approved 89 units, 40% of which were affordable. The number of affordable units
has increase to 103.
Councilmember Horak asked what concerns and thoughts the CDBG Commissioners had regarding
the project changes. Ms. Rios replied these types of projects often have changes and the money
would be returned if the project was not completed. Jeff Taylor, CDBG Boardmember, stated the
Board noted the project includes a large number of units at the lowest AMI. Market units are
frequently added to maintain the economic viability of a project. It is vital that the City show
financial support. Additionally, the private partnership is critical.
Councilmember Horak asked about the process for the major amendment. Waido replied staff will
make a recommendation based on the application and a hearing officer will make a decision
following a public hearing. An appeal of that decision would result in a hearing before Council.
The hearing will likely be held in the next two to three months.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if a process exists by which Council could postpone tonight’s
decision but not have to wait until the fall competitive process for the project to return. Waido
replied Council’s decision tonight will be used to complete the annual plan to submit to HUD.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-063.
414
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak commended the CDBG process and the Board’s vetting of the applications
and noted the importance of affordable housing in the community.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion despite the legitimate process questions
and noted the URA Board will have the ability to approve the project. He thanked the CDBG Board
for its work on the applications.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the CDBG Board for its service and the applicants for their work
in the community.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the community’s non-profits and other social service
organizations. She stated she would not support the motion based on the process issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if there are funds left over in any of the categories. Waido replied
all of the available funding is being recommended to be allocated.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion given the process issues.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this is a competitive process and funds need to be used to gain other funds.
Affordable housing projects should be isolated from the Development Review process as the need
is greater for the projects to exist.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated standards should not be lessened for lower income residents.
Mayor Weitkunat clarified the process for Community Development Block Grants should be
separate from the Development Review process.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 096, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-064. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
415
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 097, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-065. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Water Fund for the Purpose of Providing a Loan to FCDM, Inc. for the Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
At the July 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Council adopted on First Reading, two ordinances which
appropriate funding to continue construction on the new Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science
Center facility. Ordinance No. 087, 2011, adopted 5-2 (nays: Kottwitz, Ohlson) appropriates $1.5
million from General Fund reserves to the capital project. Council amended the original ordinance
from $3 million to $1.5 million. Ordinance No. 088, 2011, adopted 6-1 (nays: Kottwitz)
appropriates $875,000 from Water Fund reserves to the Non-profit Corporation as a loan. These
ordinances will keep the museum project moving forward for several months and avoid a costly
work stoppage.
The building project is experiencing a $3,875,000 cash flow issue from two sources. The Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) has committed $3 million for the building but funds are not currently
available. The Non-profit Corporation has raised $4,561,916 of which $875,000 is in the form of
pledges to be paid between 2011 and 2014. The two Ordinances allow construction to continue for
several months. This additional time allows Council to consider the Building Community Choices
reserve at the July 12 work session and other potential funding mechanisms; review the next few
416
July 19, 2011
months of sales tax; and the DDA will receive its certification from the County in August, providing
key data to determine when its $3 million commitment can be paid to the project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Through Council’s support, the Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science Center (DSC)
joined together to create an exceptional new museum experience and facility. In 2005, Council
included the new museum in the Building on Basics (BOB) capital program, which received strong
voter support. BOB provided $6.183 million for the project and required DSC to provide at least
$3.6 million in matching funds. The DSC (which has transitioned into the Museum Non-Profit
Corporation (NPC)) has raised more than $8 million to date, far exceeding their original $3.6
million commitment.
BOB also provides $200,000 annually for seven years for operation and maintenance of the new
facility. The BOB operations and maintenance dollars will end after seven years of operations. The
current plan to replace these funds is to continue to build the institutional endowment over the next
seven years to generate enough income to cover the $200,000 BOB operations and maintenance
dollars.
BUILDING
The building construction project is experiencing a $3,875,000 cash flow problem. Two significant
sources of funding are currently not available to pay into the construction project, which began on
August 16, 2010 and is slated for completion in November 2011.
Council adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 087, 2011, for $1.5 million and Ordinance No.
088, 2011, for $875,000, totaling $2,375,000 to keep the museum project moving forward for several
months and avoid a costly work stoppage.
To default on a construction contract would have an impact on the City’s bond rating, and could
have a significant impact on the City’s reputation with contractors with the potential result of fewer
firms willing to bid to the City and increased bids on future projects.
The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) committed $3 million for the building but the funds
are not currently available. The DDA is exploring funding options but will not have the funding in
2011. The Museum Non-profit Corporation (NPC) has committed $4,561,916 to the museum
building, with $875,000 of that amount in the form of pledges. These pledges will be paid between
2011 and 2014 and are not available to fund the project now.
Ordinance No. 087, 2011 appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund to the capital project.
Council amended the Ordinance for Second Reading from $3 million to $1.5 million. This funding
covers half of the DDA’s $3 million commitment, but is not a loan to the DDA. The DDA will
receive its certification from the County in August, providing key data to determine when and how
the DDA will issue bonds for this and other upcoming DDA projects. It is possible the City could
417
July 19, 2011
be the purchaser of the DDA’s bonds. The remaining $1.5 million will be needed in several months
to complete the construction project. On First Reading, Council asked if the funding source could
be a source other than the General Fund. Building Community Choices remaining balance is
another possible source.
Ordinance No. 088, 2011, approves an $875,000 loan to the NPC to cover pledges made to the
project. The loan details are attached as an Exhibit to the Ordinance, and include a 3.5% interest
rate (prime rate of 3.25% plus .25%) with a payout schedule starting in 2012 and ending in 2014.
EXHIBITS
Council did not adopt on First Reading, Ordinance No. 089, 2011, to loan the NPC an additional
$1.2 million to cover pledges designated specifically for fabrication of exhibits for the new facility.
There are eleven themed areas in the master exhibit plan. Three themed areas are funded through
designated donations that have been paid: music and sound, science, and natural areas. The $1.2
million for the remaining zones is in the form of pledges to be paid between 2012 and 2017. NPC
continues to explore private bridge loans to cover the pledges. Interest rates will be higher than
what the City could provide, which will decrease the amount of funding available for exhibit
fabrication. If a loan cannot be secured, the remaining zones will be phased into the gallery as
pledges are paid, between 2012 and 2017.
Council asked if staff would be adding to the bottom line of the total exhibit costs if the exhibits were
phased in over time. The bottom line will see a 10 – 20% increase by phasing the exhibits. The
percentage moves toward 20% as the phases are spread farther apart over time.
On First Reading, Council requested a list of the top 4 or 5 operation and maintenance costs,
besides staffing, for the new facility. These items include:
• Utilities – estimated at $42,600 annually (based on modeling projections that could change
according to the actual use of the building and future costs of utilities)
• Custodial, trash and recycling – estimated at $59,000
• Maintenance and repair – estimated at $55,000 year one (Primarily HVAC, electrical,
preventive maintenance inspections, filters, etc. not covered under warranty. This number
will ratchet up as warranties expire and the building begins to age)
• Grounds maintenance/snow removal - estimated at $18,500
Council also directed staff to fill all three available City appointed seats on the NPC Board. Staff
will work with the City Manager to appoint the two vacant seats as soon as possible.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Ordinance No. 087, 2011, appropriates $1,500,000 in the General Fund to cover construction of
the Museum building. The DDA’s pledge has already been appropriated in the Capital Projects
fund, however the project is underway and it is unable to make payment at this time.
418
July 19, 2011
To fund its pledge, the DDA plans to seek external financing. In that scenario the amount of
available reserves in the General Fund at the end of 2012 are forecasted to exceed the policy
minimum by $7,500,000. If, however, the DDA instead asks the City for a loan, and the loan is
granted, available reserves above the policy minimum will be $4.5 million.
Ordinance No. 088, 2011 authorizes $875,000 in the Water Fund to be loaned to the NPC. The NPC
building commitments have already been appropriated in the project, however the project is
underway and they are unable to make payment at this time. The NPC has building pledges equal
to their commitment but the pledges will come in installments through 2014. The Water fund
currently has reserves that exceed its policy minimums allowing it to make this loan. The proposed
terms are 3.5% annual interest and $875,000 in principal to be paid according to the loan
agreement.”
Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director, discussed the Ordinances and Council’s First Reading
approvals. Councilmember Horak has added an amendment for consideration tonight to add back
$1.5 million to Ordinance No. 087, 2011, to cover the DDA’s commitment in total. The third
Ordinance heard on First Reading was not passed but could be brought back before Council at its
direction.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested there is no guarantee that tax increment collected
by the Downtown Development Authority will be applied to this project. He made comparisons
between the museum and the RMI2 project and stated there was no governance of the RMI2 project
at all.
Annette Geiselman, Discovery Science Center Director, thanked Council for adopting Ordinance
No. 088, 2011, on First Reading. She discussed community support for the museum.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 087, 2011 as amended, Option A, on Second Reading.
City Attorney Roy read the Ordinance changes into the record.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he has had several meetings with staff over the last year regarding
this issue in which staff was unaware of certain changes. He asked what assurance exists that the
governance model and communication to Council will be improved. City Manager Atteberry replied
staff is reviewing its processes to ensure these types of communication issues do not occur again.
He stated he is personally going to sit on the Board of Directors of the Non-Profit Corporation
(NPC) for a significant period of time.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why the City only filled one of its allotted three positions on the
Board. City Manager Atteberry replied those positions will be filled moving forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern with 25% of the permanent exhibit space being dedicated
to music. Stilwell replied an exhibit design master plan firm was hired to determine what the
419
July 19, 2011
exhibits should be and the building was designed around those exhibits. Those exhibits fall into
eleven thematic areas, one of which is music and sound.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern with the relatively little amount of exhibit space being
dedicated to sustainability and energy. Stilwell replied the exhibits are designed to be a cohesive
experience with music having its own area primarily due to electric needs. Other areas incorporate
several themes and sustainability is discussed throughout the exhibit space.
Councilmember Horak asked if the exhibits were influenced by donors. Stilwell replied in the
negative.
Councilmember Kottwitz noted the early childhood section of the museum has not yet been funded.
Marty Heffernan, Director of Culture, Parks, Recreation, and Environment, clarified the space for
that exhibit is part of the construction; however, the fundraising for the actual exhibits has not yet
occurred.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how the exhibits and fundraising were prioritized. Stilwell replied
the early childhood piece is a discreet area that can be completed at a later time.
City Manager Atteberry suggested that piece is a prime opportunity for seeking specific donors.
Stilwell discussed other areas of the museum yet to be completely funded including the digital dome,
the early childhood area, and some thematic exhibit areas.
Councilmember Horak asked how much funding the early childhood area is expected to need.
Stilwell replied approximately $450,000 is needed.
Councilmember Horak suggested an independent review of the exhibit space allocations be held and
stated the Board should no longer be able to appoint boardmembers.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she supports the project but would not support the motion as
citizens may not have intended to spend an additional $3 million on the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed support for the project but stated there has been undue influence
by donors. Appropriate recognition for donors is necessary; however, one large corporate logo is
not suitable for a project 70% funded by public dollars. Ms. Geiselman replied donor recognition
guidelines, approved by City Manager Atteberry, have been accurately followed.
City Manager Atteberry asked for a brief description of donor recognition. Ms. Geiselman replied
a $1 million donation will afford the donor the recognition opportunity of an exhibit theme. All
donor recognition will be artfully and tastefully completed with a great deal of sensitivity to
avoiding advertisements.
420
July 19, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the sponsorship recognition at the Gardens on Spring Creek has
improved as it was previously distracting. Heffernan replied the individual recognitions were too
prominent and staff has been consulted.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 088, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-066
Approving an Agreement Between the City and Avago Technologies US, Inc. to
Provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 4 Retrofit, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution approves a Business Investment Agreement between the City and Avago
Technologies. The Agreement provides two performance based investments: (1) a one-time use tax
rebate on manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the expansion; and (2) a personal property
tax rebate on the same equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would
not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the City. The total investment package
has a value of approximately $3.2 million and includes both local and state investments. The total
value of the use tax and personal property constitutes $2.912 million of the package value. NOTE:
The value of the package has increased since the Council Finance Committee briefing on July 5,
2011. The increase is due to additional investment in manufacturing equipment by Avago.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2005, the City Council adopted the first Economic Action Plan to provide staff focus and
direction regarding efforts to enhance the local economy. The Action Plan contains four key
strategies: (1) job creation through business retention, expansion, incubation, and attraction; (2)
be proactive on economic issues; (3) build partnerships; and (4) diversify the economy.
Furthermore, City Council has given consistent and clear direction that all investment agreements
be performance based.
In 2006, the City commissioned a study to evaluate the geographic concentration and
interconnectedness of companies within the community in order to determine potential industry
421
July 19, 2011
clusters. The study identified several existing and emerging industry clusters. The identified
clusters were modified into five targeted industry clusters, which became the focus of job creation
activities. These clusters included: Clean Energy, Bioscience, Chip Design, Software, and Uniquely
Fort Collins.
On August 17, 2010, the City adopted Resolution 2010-055, authorizing and directing the City
Manager to continue to support on behalf of the City participation in the formation and development
of cluster initiatives relating to the identified targeted industries of the City, to work with regional
partners and local business entities to develop strategic plans for the clusters, and to support the
advancement of the plans as they are implemented for the purpose of primary job retention,
expansion, and creation.
Avago Technologies has a 50-year history of innovation dating back to origins within Hewlett-
Packard Company (HP). The company began as HP's components division back in the early 1960s
and thrived there for three decades. When HP spun off Agilent Technologies in 1999, the company
became Agilent's Semiconductor Products Group (SPG) and expanded into new markets and
applications. In late 2005, SPG was acquired by several private equity partners and Avago
Technologies was founded. Over the years, Avago has assembled a team of over 1,000 design and
product engineers and maintains highly collaborative design and product development resources
around the world that have resulted in the development of numerous groundbreaking technologies.
The Business Investment Agreement being offered to Avago Technologies is consistent with both the
Action Plan strategies and City Council direction:
• The proposed Business Investment Agreement rebates tax revenues generated by the project;
without the project these revenues would not be received by the City.
• The Economic Action Plan clearly identifies business retention and expansion as the primary
goal for the City’s job creation efforts over business attraction; the proposed expansion
supports this goal.
• Plan Fort Collins call for creating a diversity of jobs that enables citizens and businesses
to thrive; the proposed expansion provides an array of jobs and salary ranges. Most
importantly, the expansion brings back much needed high-tech manufacturing jobs.
PROJECT OVERIVEW
Avago Technologies plans to expand its wafer manufacturing, which currently occurs only in
Taiwan. The company evaluated expansion at facilities in Taiwan, Italy, and Fort Collins. Avago
Technologies selected the City for expansion for several reasons, including: (1) low power costs,
(2) progressive utilities willing to assist in the modernization of plant operations related to power
and water consumption, and (3) a Business Investment Agreement as described in detail below. This
expansion represents an opportunity to bring a type of chip manufacturing to Fort Collins that has
occurred primarily off-shore.
422
July 19, 2011
The wafer fabrication expansion includes:
• The retrofit of the existing Building 4 (approximately 10,000 square feet);
• $17 million in retrofit construction costs;
• $57.5 million in wafer manufacturing equipment;
• $5.7 million in equipment installation;
• An increase in water use of approximately 20.0 million gallons, an estimated 10 percent
increase (equivalent to annual consumption of approximately 300 average homes; no
anticipated impact on peak demand or the physical plant); and
• An increase of approximately 1.0 megawatts of electric capacity (equivalent to annual
consumption of approximately 500 average homes; no anticipated impact on peak demand
or the physical plant).
Furthermore, the proposed expansion is anticipated to add approximately 92 jobs including:
• 8 Engineers earning approximately $100,000 annually;
• 14 Technicians earning approximately $70,000 annually; and
• 70 Operators earning approximately $40,000 annually.
BUSINESS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
On April 22, 2011, Economic Health Office staff provided Avago Technologies with an offer of
assistance to support the retrofit of Building 4 for wafer fabrication (Attachment 1). The package
was submitted to Avago Technologies confidentially. The item was scheduled for Council Finance
Committee consideration (July 5, 2011) and City Council action (July 19, 2011). The meetings were
scheduled after the Colorado Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered a request for
assistance from its Strategic Fund. The EDC requests that all potential assistance packages remain
confidential until it has an opportunity to consider the request. The EDC considered the request on
June 16, 2011. The Council Finance Committee meetings and City Council action were scheduled
shortly after this meeting in consultation with the City Manager.
The City of Fort Collins uses a variety of local investments to assist primary employers with
expansion efforts. The total value of the proposed investment package is approximately $3.2 million
and includes both local and state investments ($2.9 million in local investments and $300,000 in
state investments). The package includes the following items:
• $1.725 million in Equipment Use Tax rebate on the initial manufacturing equipment
investment associated with the project
• Approximately $817,000 in Personal Property Tax savings on manufacturing equipment
over a 10 year period
• Expedited review and commitment by City staff to Avago’s desired timeline
• Free Integrated Design Assistance valued at $20,000 to improve operating efficiencies
• Assistance with building re-commissioning, valued at up to $150,000 to maximize building
efficiency and reduce utility costs
423
July 19, 2011
• Implementation of the evaporative cooling credit against sewer costs, creating
approximately $20,000 annually or a total of $200,000 over ten years
• $230,000 in Colorado Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) Strategic Fund
assistance (subject to Board approval); and
• $73,600 in Colorado FIRST Customized Job Training Funds.
The Utility items listed above are available to any company within Fort Collins, whether expanding
or continuing operations. They have been included in the package description because the
competition may not offer similar utility assistance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economic and Regional Economist at Colorado State
University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of Avago Technologies planned expansion
(Attachment 2). The following summarizes that analysis:
• New equipment will generate approximately $1.725 million in use tax revenue (offset by
investment package)
• The same equipment will generate approximately $163,000 in annual personal property tax
revenue of $1.63 million over the ten year agreement period (partially offset by investment
package)
• Construction activity ($17 million retrofit and $5.7 million equipment installation) will
support 228 direct jobs and 74 spin-off jobs throughout the anticipated 15-month
construction period
• Construction will generate approximately $323,400 in use tax revenue on materials
• The 92 new jobs will support an additional 155 in spin-off secondary jobs at an average
salary of $48,900
• The 92 new jobs will generate approximately $554,000 in sales tax revenue and $413,000
in property tax revenue over the next ten years; and
• The EIA recognizes additional sales tax and property tax revenue will be generated by the
spin-off jobs; however, the analysis provides a conservative estimate of economic impact
and does not estimate these revenues.
The proposed Business Investment Agreement will have the following impacts on the City of Fort
Collins finances:
• All of the estimated $1.725 million in use tax revenue collected on the purchase of the wafer
fabrication equipment will be rebated
• Half of the estimated $163,000 in annual Personal Property Tax revenue collected on the
wafer fabrication equipment will be rebated for ten years for a total of approximately
$817,000
• Utilities will invest approximately $170,000 in one-time energy and water efficiency design
assistance
424
July 19, 2011
• In addition, Avago will take advantage of the new evaporative cooling credit offered by the
Fort Collins Utilities for a total savings of $200,000 over the course of ten years
• However, the City would not have collected Use Tax or Personal Property Tax revenue if
the expansion had occurred in Italy or Taiwan.
• Net impact of the Business Investment Agreement is approximately $1.755 million, as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Revenue, Rebate, and Net Revenue
Revenue Estimated Revenue Rebate/
Incentive
Net Revenue
One-Time Items
Construction Use Tax $323,000 $0 $323,000
Equipment Use Tax 1 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $0
Integrated Design Assistance $0 $20,000 ($20,000)
Building Re-commissioning $0 $150,000 ($150,000)
Subtotal $2,048,000 $1,895,000 $153,000
On-Going Items (Cumulative over 10 Years)
Equipment Personal Property Tax $1,630,000 $817,000 $817,000
Spin Off Sales Tax $554,000 $0 $554,000
Spin Off Property Tax $413,000 $0 $413,000
Evaporative Cooling Credit $0 $200,000 ($200,000)
Subtotal $$2,597,000 $1,017,000 $1,602,000
Total $4,645,000 $2,912,000 $1,755,000
1 Current City Code allows for a rebate of 1.5 percent of the 3.0 percent use tax. The
proposed Business Investment Agreement increases the rebate to the full 3.0 percent;
therefore the incentive provides a value of $727,500 above current Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Avago plans to make the following system upgrades as part of the retrofit of Building 4:
• A site-wide HVAC retrofit.
• A "free heating" project, which utilizes waste heat from HVAC Chillers to reheat incoming
outside air for Building 4. Similar to a Building 2 upgrade that reduced natural gas
consumption on site by approximately 5%.
• Purchase and installation of a high efficiency chiller sized to handle the building’s base load
conditions (in winter) and run at optimum performance.
• Replace two boilers with two new very high efficiency condensing boilers matched to the
building’s base load, which avoids running boilers to big to run efficiently.
425
July 19, 2011
Based on the Fort Collins Utility assistance , the upgrades will help to reach 3 million kilowatt-
hours of annual savings. This savings in energy consumption will have the following environmental
benefits:
• The project would comprise 14% of the City’s annual efficiency savings goal;
• The project would avoid 2119 metric tons of carbon emissions annually; and
• The carbon emissions savings are equivalent to the annual emissions of 415 cars or 264
homes or the amount of carbon sequestered by 54,333 tree seedlings grown for ten years.”
Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, discussed the project at Avago and noted the Fort Collins site was
selected for the expansion over sites in Taiwan and Italy. Construction will begin in earnest soon
and the facility should be operational by next fall. An economic impact analysis was completed by
a Colorado State University economist. The appraisal estimated the project would generate $1.725
million in use tax revenues, $1.38 million in personal property tax, and approximately 228 direct
construction industry jobs for approximately 15 months. Additionally, 92 primary jobs would
generate approximately $500,000 in sales tax revenue over 10 years. The net value of the business
agreement is an approximately $730,000 additional rebate on top of the standing rebates outlined
in City Code.
Glenn Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, expressed concern the City has been providing too many
financial incentives for private industry. The City should consider providing financial incentives
based on need rather than simple requests.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed water and power use of the new facility.
Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde, expressed concern the proposed expansion will negatively affect
neighboring homes and presented a petition signed by seven of those homes.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for a staff perspective of the operations. Birks replied Building 4, in which
some manufacturing occurs, is approximately 40,000 square feet total; only 10,000 square feet of
which is occupied. This expansion would include an additional 10,000 square feet of manufacturing
space thereby still leaving half of the building vacant.
Steve Wolley, Avago Facilities Manager, stated this development is entirely interior with no
additional exterior construction. He stated neighborhood concerns had previously been addressed
by construction of a wall to block out sound and interior lighting structure changes. There are
further changes which could be made if needed.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would approach Hewlett Packard with the neighborhood concerns
as well.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the means of communication between Avago and neighbors. Mr.
Wolley replied the concerns have been heard and will certainly be addressed.
426
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw asked how policies at Avago could change to ensure the company is being
the best neighbor possible. Mr. Wolley replied interior lighting can be managed by lighting systems
rather than users. A physical solution will need to be developed for noise mitigation.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Mr. Wolley would personally be willing to have somewhat regular
meetings with neighbors. Mr. Wolley replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell asked why Fort Collins residents should care about Avago’s products. Mr.
Wolley replied this facility makes cell phone parts, which are sold worldwide, as well as other
products.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-066.
Councilmember Poppaw supported the project and thanked Mr. Wolley for his presence and
responses.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how the projected water and electricity usage could not affect supply.
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied the increase will have no impact on
the plant infrastructure or available capacity.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to see more information in the future in terms of the
costs, or potential negative impacts of these types of business agreements.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested salary ranges be provided when projected jobs are discussed.
Councilmember Troxell asked if distributed energy generation would be part of this project. Mr.
Wolley replied Building Four will operate on a “free heating” scenario. Various conservation
activities, such as warming water to room temperature using the waste heat off chillers, will
continue. Efficiencies are the least expensive, most effective way for industry to beat the carbon
emissions problem.
Councilmember Troxell asked if any integration of on-site energy use has occurred to help shift
peak. Mr. Wolley replied electric needs basically never cease; however, generators are run during
peak hours to help offset some peak time demand.
Councilmember Manvel supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for actively pursuing this project and commended Mr.
Wolley for his service to the community.
427
July 19, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council has always supported expansion and retention of existing primary
businesses and thanked Mr. Wolley for his commitment to the business and community.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry discussed the possible movement of the remaining agenda items, the
Executive Session, and the URA Meeting to other dates.
Mayor Weitkunat led a brief discussion of the items yet to be heard.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to postpone Item
Nos. 17, 18, and 19, Items Relating to Grass Height Restrictions and Updating Related City Code
References, First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained
in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals
to the City Council, and Resolution 2011-060 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the
Conduct of City Council Meetings, to a date to be determined by the Leadership Team and City
Manager. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to extend the meeting
in order to consider Item Nos. 9, 16, and 29, Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in
Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of
Electric Generation Facilities, Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power Arrangement for the
Water Treatment Facility, and Resolution 2011-067 Creating a Council Futures Committee.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about moving forward with the items at the late hour.
Councilmember Poppaw suggested future examination of agendas to attempt to eliminate these
situations.
Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to postpone Item
Nos. 9 and 29, Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the
Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation
Facilities and Resolution 2011-067 Creating a Council Futures Committee to a date to be
determined by the Leadership Team and City Manager.
428
July 19, 2011
Councilmember Horak suggested continuing all appropriate items to an adjourned meeting on July
26th.
Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew the motion.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on July 26, 2011, to consider all business not considered on July 19, 2011, and to consider
going into Executive Session.
City Manager Atteberry suggested Item Nos. 16 and 29 be heard on July 26, 2011, with the
remaining business to be heard in August or September.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
429
July 26, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak, and
Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power
Arrangement for the Water Treatment Facility, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase
Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility for a
Term of Up to 20 Years.
B. Resolution 2011-059 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to a Selected Solar Provider for the
Use of the City Water Treatment Facility Property for a Solar Project.
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a portion
of electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will design,
construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This Ordinance allows
for a 20-year contract between the system developer and the City. The Resolution issues a
revocable permit for use of a portion of land onsite of the Water Treatment Facility by the
photovoltaic system developer.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Water Treatment Facility is located in Larimer County and as such, receives its electrical power
from Xcel Energy instead of City Light and Power. Xcel Energy has a Solar Rewards program that
gives third party entities rebates and renewable energy credits for solar power generation. The City
cannot take full advantage of the rebates and credits, and instead, selects through a competitive
process, a photovoltaic (PV) system developer who designs, constructs, operates and maintains the
solar system, and sells the power generated to the City, based on a negotiated fixed rate, through
a power purchase agreement.
430
July 26, 2011
The City received nine proposals, interviewed three firms, and is in the process of negotiating a
power purchase agreement with the selected solar system developer.
The proposed solar system will generate approximately 145,000 kWh per year. This system is not
sized to supply the entire electrical demand for the Water Treatment Facility, but will contribute
significantly to the energy savings at the plant.
This power purchase agreement is a 20-year contract between the PV system developer and the City.
The City Code provides that a multi-year contract for a period of 5 years must be authorized by
ordinance.
The advantages of the power purchase agreement are:
• Fixed rate of electricity throughout the 20-year term, based on a negotiated initial price.
• The power generated will only be sold to the City at the Water Treatment Facility.
• No upfront capital costs for the City.
• No operation and maintenance costs for the duration of the contract
• Renewable energy on site to help attain the City’s sustainability goals.
• Ability to purchase the system, at fair market value, after year 5, if desired.
The Resolution authorizes the execution of a revocable permit to the Photovoltaic System Developer
for the solar project. It addresses the project site at the Water Treatment Facility site and its use
by the PV system developer to construct the solar system. The City Charter allows Council to grant
a permit at any time for the use or occupation of any public place.
The site where the solar project will be located is within the security of the water treatment facility,
and on raw land that is not currently in use by the plant processes.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Water Treatment Facility utilizes electricity to treat drinking water for its customers. The
power purchased from the solar developer will offset a portion of that electrical power demand that
must be purchased from Xcel Energy. The advantage is the fixed rate of this portion of the power
versus the expected increases in electrical costs from Xcel. Over the 20-year term of the power
purchase agreement, the estimated savings is $108,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This project will not impact the quantity and quality of drinking water produced. By replacing
utility electricity with renewable solar power, the Water Treatment Facility will continue to work
towards the City’s internal sustainability goal of reducing energy consumption by 20% of the 2005
baseline by 2020, and demand peak use by 15% by 2020.”
Lisa Voytko, Water Treatment Facility Water Production Manager, stated this Ordinance would
allow execution of a power purchase agreement with a third party solar system provider for 20 years.
431
July 26, 2011
Power would be sold back to the City at a fixed negotiated rate. The Resolution allows for the third
party developer to access the Water Treatment Facility site for equipment installation. Benefits of
this project include overall electrical cost reduction at the facility and incorporation of energy
efficiency. Voytko showed photos of and plans for the site and project.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern regarding the purchasing policies of the
City relating to this project and stated the City’s electric rates have been subsidized by Xcel rate
payers.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the habitat value of the land proposed to be used for the solar
project. Voytko replied the land is currently mowed hydro-mix grass with pipeline surrounding it.
The land was made grade-level in 2000.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how long this idea has been circulating within the organization. Steve
Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied the original idea was presented at a Council
Finance Committee meeting in late 2009.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what financial implications may concern the Water Board. Catanach
replied the initial idea was that the City would fund and construct the solar array and sell the
renewable energy credits to Xcel. The price for each megawatt hour has dropped from $135 to $35
since, resulting in the currently-proposed third party structure.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the City has passed external sustainability goals. Catanach replied
the City has a community goal, as well as an internal City organization goal, of reducing carbon
emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. City Manager Atteberry stated he would provide
an outline of the internal and external sustainability goals prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the current wholesale rate from Xcel. Voytko replied the City
is on the primary general rate but Xcel charges are based on use during peak and off-peak hours and
also has several additional charges.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this is a feed-in tariff situation in which energy is being purchased
ahead of time at a fixed rate. Catanach replied that is somewhat the case other than it is a price set,
taking into account the value of the renewable energy credits to Xcel.
Councilmember Troxell asked about Xcel’s power quality issues with respect to the water treatment
facility. Voytko replied the facility has two feeds from Xcel which are currently being improved
to come from two different substations. The facility has not had any issues with power in at least
the last few years.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 092, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
432
July 26, 2011
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-059. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-067
Creating a Council Futures Committee, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the Council retreat on May 6 and 7, 2011, Council indicated an interest in forming a Futures
Committee, the purpose of which would be to develop a vision for the future of Fort Collins, using
economic modeling and other information to help inform and establish a guide for Council to
consider in making decisions about the future of the community.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Prospective committee members have met informally twice in the past month in order to more
clearly define the aspirations, roles and functions, meeting schedule, and intent of the committee.
The intent was clearly to look beyond the present and develop ideas about the distant future, looking
beyond the typical City planning horizons and to develop informed ideas about where our
community should be heading. Additionally, the Committee wanted to develop an approach to the
financial strategies and systems required to successfully achieve the desired future.
Some of the specific considerations were to develop a clear set of measurable goals and objectives.
Key questions considered for future discussion were:
• What are the visionary considerations that should shape our future and make it better as a
community?
• A significant focus of the committee should be on energy, water, and the natural and built
environment
• Another focus will be on social issues such as homelessness and poverty.
• Are there clearly stated goals and objectives that will keep the community on the path to
achieving this future?
• What are the potential roadblocks to success?
• Is the budget aligned with the goals?
• When considering future ideas, capital costs, lifecycle, operations and maintenance should
be key considerations.
• Is there a financial model which aligns funding strategies with the future vision?
• Are advisory boards and commissions directly reinforcing the goals? Committees have been
developed over the years on an ad hoc basis. Today there are overlapping responsibilities
and duties that do not always directly align with the City’s goals, plans, and policies. The
433
July 26, 2011
committee would like to take these Boards into consideration and make sure they are directly
reinforcing the future direction of the community.
• Are City programs and activities in alignment with the future vision?
• Are there clear metrics to measure outcomes and determine success?
• What are the regional contextual issues and what are the key considerations of this context?
How does this City fit in with its regional partner cities?
The intent is for the committee to operate in a dynamic process whereby numerous ideas are
considered and evaluated. Some of the ideas may evolve into actionable recommendations to
Council for programs, activities or projects, while others may not make be considered further.
Generating, evaluating, and refining ideas will be a significant consideration. To add ideas to the
process the committee may bring in speakers, visit sites in other Front Range communities, or attend
specific seminars. Many of the City staff will be engaged with the committee on a project by project
basis, and at various times, different City departments may be asked to attend committee meetings.
With respect to Plan Fort Collins, the committee should recognize the value of the Plan and be
familiar with its components. The focus however, will be to consider farther into the future than the
current planning horizon and attempt to determine a path to the future.
The committee will meet twice a month and will elect a rotating chair. Members will be appointed
by City Council and appointments will be made at the start of election terms.”
City Manager Atteberry stated this item came from suggestions at the May Council workshop. If
passed, the Resolution appoints Councilmembers Poppaw, Troxell, and Horak to the Committee.
A revised Resolution and Agenda Item Summary are included in tonight’s packet.
Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager, discussed the proposed logistics and general notion
of the committee. He stated the Committee would support the City’s notion of the triple bottom line
which represents the balance of environment, economy and the social fabric of the community. The
intent of the Committee would be to develop and evaluate ideas, with aid from staff and the
community, to bring before Council for consideration.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern the City organization is not making
progress in terms of looking at the near future.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked City Manager Atteberry and staff for the vision to create this best
practices committee.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-067.
Councilmember Horak noted the committee is as much about the present as it is the future.
City Manager Atteberry noted this item was Council driven.
434
July 26, 2011
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to cancel the August
2, 2011 regular Council meeting pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-28(a) of the City Code, so
that Councilmembers can attend the various neighborhood gatherings that will be held that same
evening in connection with the Neighborhood Night Out celebration.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested Council meetings be rescheduled around some of these annual
events in order to prevent several summer meetings from being cancelled.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session, pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, for the purpose of meeting with attorneys
for the City and affected members of City staff regarding the manner in which particular policies,
practices and/or regulations of the City may be affected by existing or proposed provisions of
federal, state or local law and to discuss potential litigation. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting Reconvened
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session, pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code, for the purpose of conducting the mid-year
performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Yeas: Weitkunat,
Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
435
July 26, 2011
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
436
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Steve Catanach
Ginger Purvis
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to
Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code and the Land
Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Interconnection Standards for
Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor revisions to the definitions
section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and the Land Use Code. These revisions
include updating the definition of General Manager, clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and
clarification regarding authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City.
Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance
requirements contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other
requirements for interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 5, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: July 5, 2011
STAFF: Steve Catanach
Ginger Purvis
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to
Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code and the Land Use
Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Interconnection Standards for
Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Department is proposing minor revisions to the definitions section of Article
I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating
the definition of General Manager, clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and clarification
regarding authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City. Light and
Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements
contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other requirements for
interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Light and Power Department is proposing the following revisions to the Electric Article of the City Code and
revisions to the Land Use Code. These revisions are primarily definitional in nature.
1. Title revision and appointment: General Manager of Utility Services or General Manager shall mean Utilities
Executive Director or appointed designee of such Executive Director. Sec 26-391. “Definitions”.
2. Clarifying that “Net metering service” is available exclusively for a qualifying facility “using a qualifying
renewable technology”. Sections 26-391, 465 through 468.
Also included is an amendment specifically authorizing the Utilities General Manager or the Manager’s appointed
designee to sign interconnection agreements or parallel generation agreements.
Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance
requirements contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. As currently written, the indemnification and insurance
requirements in the Interconnection Standards allow for no flexibility where a governmental entity cannot by law
indemnify the City and may elect to self-insure in accordance with Colorado law. By adding the following language,
“except when the Operator is a governmental entity that self-insures in accordance with Colorado law”, the City’s
Interconnection Standards will now allow for that flexibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 5, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 4, 2011, the recommended amendments and revisions were presented to the Electric Board. The Board
requested additional clarification to the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements in the agreement as it relates
to the Utilities collaboration with CSU and the RDSI project. Staff explained that the interconnection requirements and
the system protections installed by the Utilities are designed to protect the Utilities distribution system from any type
of damage such as spikes. After a brief discussion clarifying CSU’s current position on indemnification and insurance
in the Interconnection Agreement, the Board unanimously voted to recommend the City Council adopt the amendments
to the City Code and the revisions to the City’s Interconnection Standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Electric Board minutes, May 4, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 079, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO THE PROVISION OF NET METERING SERVICE
AND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010, City Council approved Ordinance No. 003, 2010,
amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code to allow for the provision of net metered electric
service; and
WHEREAS, City staff intends for net metered electric service to be made available only for
those qualifying facilities that use a qualifying renewable technology as those terms are currently
defined in the City Code; and
WHEREAS, City staff believes that the head of Utilities Services should be authorized to
execute valid interconnection or parallel generation agreements with customers who wish to
interconnect qualifying facilities to the City’s electric distribution system; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2011, the Fort Collins Electric Board reviewed and considered the
proposed amendments to the City Code and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council
make such amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the definition “Net metering service” contained in Section 26-391 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Net metering service shall mean that service available to a customer-
generator operating a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable technology that
is interconnected to the electric utility so that any electric energy generated by the
qualifying facility in excess of that used by the qualifying facility is delivered to the
electric utility system and used to offset metered energy received by the customer-
generator during the billing period.
Section 2. That the definition “Qualifying facility” contained in Section 26-391 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Qualifying facility shall mean an electric-generating facility operated in
parallel with the City of Fort Collins electric distribution system that has been
inspected for compliance with the City of Fort Collins Utility Services
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System, has been issued a “Permit to Operate” by the City and is
operated under a valid “Interconnection Agreement” or “Parallel Generation
Agreement” executed on behalf of the City of Fort Collins by the General Manager.
Section 3. That Section 26-464(o)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(o) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric
energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable
technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator’s
qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria:
. . .
Section 4. That Section 26-465(q)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(q) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric
energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable
technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator’s
qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria:
. . .
Section 5. That Section 26-466(r)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(r) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric
energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable
technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator’s
qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria:
. . .
Section 6. That Section 26-467(u)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(u) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric
energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable
technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator’s
qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria:
. . .
-2-
Section 7. That Section 26-468(v)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(v) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric
energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable
technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator’s
qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria:
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of July,
A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS AND THE FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF GENERAL MANAGER
WHEREAS, certain provisions in both the City Code and the Land Use Code contain
references to the “General Manager of Utility Services” or “General Manager”; and
WHEREAS, the title of the head of the Utility Services service area has been changed to
“Utilities Executive Director”; and
WHEREAS, the City Code and the Land Use Code need to be updated to reflect the current
title of the head of Utilities Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing all
current references to the “General Manager of Utility Services” or “General Manager” so as to read
the “Utilities Executive Director.”
Section 2. That the Fort Collins Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing all
current references to the “General Manager of Utility Services” or “General Manager” so as to read
“Utilities Executive Director.”
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of July,
A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS FOR
GENERATING FACILITIES CONNECTED TO THE FORT COLLINS
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010, City Council approved and adopted Interconnection
Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System (the
“Standards”); and
WHEREAS, the Standards as currently adopted do not allow sufficient flexibility in
situations where a customer wishing to interconnect to the City electric distribution system is
prohibited by law from indemnifying the City or where such customer is self-insured; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2011, the Fort Collins Electric Board reviewed and considered
proposed amendments to the Standards, section 9.0, in the form entitled “Updated Standards”,
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, and voted unanimously
to recommend that the City Council adopt the Updated Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Updated Standards clarify that the indemnification requirements apply to
the extent permitted by law and that the insurance requirements do not apply when the customer is
a governmental entity that self-insures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Updated Standards are hereby approved and adopted.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of July,
A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
UPDATED STANDARDS
INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS
FOR GENERATING FACILITIES (GF) CONNECTED TO
THE FORT COLLINS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
July 2011 January 2010 Deleted: January 2010
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 2
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SCOPE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................5
1.1 SCOPE AND INTENT .................................................................................................................................................5
1.2 SYSTEM PHASE AND VOLTAGE................................................................................................................................5
1.3 SYSTEM RECLOSING................................................................................................................................................5
1.4 ISLANDING ..............................................................................................................................................................5
1.5 SYNCHRONIZING .....................................................................................................................................................6
1.6 IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE GF...........................................................................................................................6
1.7 SYSTEM CAPACITY LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................6
1.8 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT .....................................................................................................................................7
2.0 STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................................7
2.1 STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................................8
3.0 GF EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................8
3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................................8
3.2 INTERCONNECTION DISCONNECT SWITCH...............................................................................................................9
3.3 DEDICATED TRANSFORMER AND ADDITIONAL PRIMARY PROTECTION...................................................................9
3.4 INTERRUPTING DEVICES REQUIRED ......................................................................................................................10
3.5 SYSTEM PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS .........................................................................................................................10
3.6 MOMENTARY PARALLELING GENERATION FACILITIES .........................................................................................13
4.0 FACILITY GROUNDING ................................................................................................................................13
4.1 EQUIPMENT BONDING CONDUCTOR ......................................................................................................................14
4.2 SURGE PROTECTION ..............................................................................................................................................14
4.3 SYSTEM GROUNDING ............................................................................................................................................14
5.0 PREVENTION OF INTERFERENCE AND UNACCEPTABLE OPERATING CONDITIONS .............15
5.1 VOLTAGE REGULATION.........................................................................................................................................16
5.2 SYSTEM VOLTAGE.................................................................................................................................................16
5.3 SYSTEM FREQUENCY.............................................................................................................................................16
5.4 SYNCHRONIZATION ...............................................................................................................................................17
5.5 FLICKER ................................................................................................................................................................17
5.6 HARMONICS ..........................................................................................................................................................18
5.7 POWER FACTOR.....................................................................................................................................................18
6.0 MONITORING PROVISIONS.........................................................................................................................19
6.1 METERING.............................................................................................................................................................19
6.2 MONITORING AND CONTROL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................19
7.0 TESTING ............................................................................................................................................................20
7.1 COMMISSIONING TESTS.........................................................................................................................................20
7.2 PERIODIC MAINTENANCE TESTS ...........................................................................................................................20
7.3 QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.........................................................................................................................................21
8.0 DESIGN CHANGES ..........................................................................................................................................21
9.0 LIABILITY AND INSURANCE.......................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX A-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INDUCTION GENERATOR BETWEEN 50KW AND 100KW ....................23
APPENDIX B-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INVERTER CONNECTED GENERATOR BELOW 1000KW. ....................24
APPENDIX C-TYPICAL ONE-LINE SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR 50KW AND ABOVE ................................25
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 4
APPENDIX D-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INDUCTION GENERATOR LARGER THAN 100KW.................................26
APPENDIX E-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INVERTER CONNECTED GENERATOR LARGER THAN 1000KW.......27
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 5
Scope and General Requirements
1.1 Scope and Intent
The requirements contained in this document apply to all generation sources connected to the FCU
distribution system 5MW and below at any one location. Any and all connections to the FCU
distribution system and any aspect of such connection are subject to FCU review and such
connections shall not be permitted unless approved by FCU. The operation and design of any GF
must meet all of the requirements contained in this document, any written agreement between FCU
and the Operator, as well as any applicable requirements contained in Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins
Municipal Code and Fort Collins Utilities Electric Service Rules and Regulations.
Any location where the aggregate total generation exceeds 5MW may require additional study by
FCU. This study will consider the specific feeder where the GF is proposed to be connected. If the
addition of any GF causes the total amount of generation by all sources on that feeder to exceed
50% of the minimum load on that feeder, additional study by FCU is required and the requirements
produced as a result of that study may exceed those in this document. If the GF source to be added
is highly variable such as wind or solar, and the total amount of wind or solar generation by all
sources on that feeder exceeds 13.3% of the feeder capacity, or if the total of all the wind or solar
generation on any substation exceeds 13.3% of the substation transformer size, additional study by
FCU is required and the requirements produced as a result of that study may exceed those in this
document.
Protection and safety devices are intended to provide protection for the FCU distribution system,
FCU utility workers, FCU customers and the general public. Protective devices installed on the GF
are designed to ensure that the fault current supplied by the GF will be interrupted in the event a fault
occurs on the FCU distribution system. When a fault occurs, the GF must be designed to
automatically disconnect from the FCU distribution system until the distribution system is restored to
normal operation.
Any source not explicitly described in this document will require special study before it is allowed to
interconnect to FCU.
1.2 System Phase and Voltage
The GF may interconnect to the system at any service voltage available at the site. Additional
voltages may be arranged with FCU on a case-by-case basis, subject to FCU approval. If the site
contains a three-phase system the GF equipment must be three-phase. If only a single phase
service is available, a single-phase GF may be allowed. The maximum nameplate rating of all the
single-phase generators at any GF shall not exceed 20 kVA if connected line-line. When the site
contains a center-tapped single-phase service, machines may be connected between phase and the
center-tapped neutral providing the maximum nameplate rating of the generator connected does not
exceed 5 kVA.
1.3 System Reclosing
Automatic reclosing is generally not utilized on the FCU distribution systems to clear temporary
faults; however, in the cases and locations where automatic reclosing is used, the GF must be
designed to ensure that the GF will disconnect from the distribution system in the event an automatic
reclose occurs. Normally the GF will not be allowed to interfere with automatic reclosing where it
exists; however, industry standards require that a GF must automatically disconnect from an
islanded system within two seconds. If the existing reclosing interval is faster than two seconds FCU
will reset it to accommodate the GF.
1.4 Islanding
Islanding occurs when a GF becomes separated from the main generation source on a distribution
system, but continues to independently serve a portion of the distribution system. GF’s shall be
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 6
equipped with protective devices and controls designed to prevent the generator from being
connected to a de-energized distribution system. Islanding is not permitted on the FCU distribution
system.
1.5 Synchronizing
Synchronization of the GF with the FCU system must be done automatically. Any proposal to allow
manual synchronization is subject to review and approval by FCU. All GF’s must use protective
devices that prevent electrically closing a GF that is out of synchronization with the distribution
system. FCU will under no circumstances be responsible or liable for any damage done due to an
out of synchronization closure of a GF onto the system. Additionally, the Operator is responsible and
liable for any damage done to the FCU system by any type of improper closing onto the system.
1.6 Improper Operation of the GF
Operation and design of the GF must meet all the requirements contained in this document as well
as any applicable requirements contained in the Fort Collins Municipal Code and the Fort Collins
Utilities Electric Service Rules and Regulations and any written agreement between FCU and the
Operator. Also, no GF operation will at any time be allowed to adversely impact the operation of the
FCU system in any way. The GF must not produce adverse amounts of unbalanced currents or
voltages; produce high or low voltages, or unacceptable frequencies; it must not inject DC or
harmonics into the system beyond what is allowed by this document; or cause excessive operations
of system voltage regulating devices such as load tap changers and voltage regulators. The GF
must not adversely affect system grounding or ground fault protection.
FCU will not normally interfere with the operation of any GF. However, when requested by FCU by
telephone, in person, or in writing, the Operator must immediately stop operation and not resume
operation until cleared by FCU to do so. If the Operator begins to operate the GF out of the ranges
or conditions listed herein, the Operator must agree to cease operation until such a time as the GF
Operator can demonstrate to FCU that it has remedied the problem and can once again operate the
GF in compliance with these requirements.
If usage of the GF causes unusual fluctuations or disturbances on, or interference with FCU’s system
or other FCU customers, FCU shall have the right to require the GF to install suitable apparatus to
reasonably correct or limit such fluctuation, disturbance or interference at not expense to FCU or
other customers.
1.7 System Capacity Limitations
The equipment installed by FCU to distribute power is limited in size and is normally sized for safe
and efficient delivery of power. Adding generation to this system, especially generation supplied by
renewable sources which normally have low capacity factors, may quickly overload the existing
equipment. Care must be taken when adding generation to avoid damaging FCU equipment. Also,
when system penetration levels of distributed generation becomes large enough, accidental
islanding of sections of the system becomes possible, and additional protective devices or systems,
such as transfer trip equipment, may be needed for safe operation of the FCU system. Whenever
one or more of the following limitations are exceeded, FCU may need to conduct an additional study
and FCU may require additional equipment. Additional study is required if:
a) The rated aggregate generation kVA on any distribution transformer after the addition of
the new GF equals or exceeds 100% of the rating of the transformer
b) The rated aggregate generation kVA on any protective device or feeder from the point of
interconnection to the substation transformer exceeds 13.3% of the rating of that
protective device or feeder
c) The rated aggregate generation kVA on any feeder or portion of a feeder equals or
exceeds 50% of the existing annual minimum load on that feeder or feeder section
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 7
d) The proposed GF results in more than 90kW of single-phase generation on one phase
of a feeder when both the new and existing generation are included
e) The proposed GF includes an induction machine 300kW or greater, or an aggregate of
300kW of induction generators
1.8 Submittal Requirement
The Operator shall submit in a timely manner, sufficient design and specification information relating
to the facilities to be installed by the Operator. FCU shall be entitled to review and approve or
disapprove these facilities prior to their installation and energization. The Operator agrees to
incorporate any reasonable design changes requested by FCU prior to, during, or after installation of
the GF’s facilities. FCU’s approval or acceptance of any design and specification information related
to the GF to be installed shall not be construed as an endorsement of such engineering plans,
specifications, or other information.
The following drawings and other documents must be submitted to FCU for approval before any
construction is begun.
a) Single-line diagram of the facility showing the sizes of all equipment and the system
protection planned
b) Cut sheets on all equipment planned including inverters, generators, fuses, circuit
breakers, switches, etc.
c) Capability curves on all synchronous and doubly fed induction generators.
d) Short circuit calculations.
2.0 Standards and Definitions
2.1 Standards
In all cases the current edition of the following standards should be referred to in design of the power
plant, choice of equipment, and interconnection design.
a) ANSI C84.1 American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment-
Voltage ratings (60 Hertz)
b) IEEE Std. 18 IEEE Standard for Shunt Capacitors
c) IEEE Std. 32 IEEE Standard Requirements, Terminology, and Test Procedures for
Neutral Grounding Devices
d) IEEE Std. 141: IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for Industrial
Plants
e) IEEE Std. 142: IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems
f) IEEE Std. 242: IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
g) IEEE Std. 519: Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in
Electric Power Systems
h) IEEE Std. 665: IEEE Standard for Generation Station Grounding
i) IEEE Std. 1015: IEEE Recommended Practice for Applying Low-Voltage Circuit
Breakers Used in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
j) IEEE Std. 1036: IEEE Standard for Application of Shunt Power Capacitors
k) IEEE 1547 IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power
Systems
l) IEEE 1547.1 IEEE Standard Conformance Test Procedures for Equipment
Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
m) IEEE 1547.2 IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Std. 1547, IEEE Standard for
Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
n) IEEE Std. C2: National Electrical Safety Code
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 8
o) IEEE Std. C37.06: IEEE Standard for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers rated on a
Symmetrical Current Basis-Preferred Ratings and Required Capabilities.
p) IEEE C37.012: IEEE Application Guide for Capacitor Current Switching for AC High-
Voltage Circuit Breakers
q) IEEE C37.66: IEEE Standard Requirements for Capacitor Switches for AC Systems
(1kV thru 38kV).
r) IEEE C37.90 IEEE Standard for Relays and Relay Systems Associated with Electric
Power Apparatus
s) IEEE C37.90.1 IEEE Standard for Surge Withstand capability (SWC) Tests for Relay
and Relay Systems Associated with Electric Power Apparatus.
t) IEEE C37.90.2 IEEE Standard for Withstand Capability of Relay Systems to Radiated
Electromagnetic Interference from Transceivers
u) IEEE C37.90.3 IEEE Standard Electrostatic Discharge Tests for Protective Relays
v) IEEE C37.95 IEEE Guide for Protective Relaying of Utility-Consumer Interconnections
w) IEEE Std. C37.102 IEEE Guide for AC Generator Protection
x) IEEE Std C62.41: IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Voltages in Low-Voltage AC
Power Circuits
y) NERC PRC-024-1: Generator Frequency and Voltage Protective Relays
z) NFPA 70: National Electrical Code
aa) UL 1741: Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for
use with Distributed Energy Resources
.
2.2 Definitions
The following definitions will be used throughout this document.
• ANSI-American National Standards Institute
• FCU-Fort Collins Utility Services
• GF-Generating facility
• IEEE-Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
• KVA-Kilovolt-amps
• KW-Kilowatt
• MW-Megawatt
• NEC-National Electrical Code
• NEMA-National Electrical Manufacturers Association
• NESC-National Electrical Safety Code
• Operator-Generating facility owner and operator, successors, heirs, agents, employees, and
assigns
• PCC-Point of common coupling
• UL-Underwriters Laboratories
• VAR-Volt-Amps reactive (reactive power)
3.0 GF Equipment and Installation Requirements
3.1 General Requirements
The installation of any GF shall meet the relevant requirements of the National Electrical Code (NEC)
and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Where required by the municipality, the Operator
cleared to move forward with the installation must obtain all necessary building permits, pass all
applicable building department inspections, and meet other applicable requirements including but not
limited to municipal code and Fort Collins Electric Service Rules and Regulations.
Unless otherwise modified in this document, the interconnection must meet the requirements of IEEE
Std. 1547. Where the requirements of this document vary from the requirements of IEEE Std. 1547,
this document governs.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 9
The Operator shall be solely responsible for protecting the GF and all associated equipment from
abnormal distribution system conditions such as outages, short circuits, voltage or frequency
variations, or other disturbances. FCU will not install equipment for the protection of the GF
generator or other equipment. The GF equipment must be designed and operated so that it is
capable of properly synchronizing the generator to the system, maintaining safe operation of the
generation equipment, detecting any unusual operating condition, and disconnecting the generator
from the system anytime damage to the generator or other equipment may occur. The equipment
protection provided by the Operator will prevent the GF from adversely affecting the distribution
system's capability of providing reliable service to other FCU customers. The GF must automatically
disconnect itself from the system anytime system conditions are outside the ranges described in this
document and is not permitted to reconnect to the system until system conditions return to normal
and are maintained within the normal range for a minimum of five (5) minutes.
3.2 Interconnection Disconnect Switch
Each GF installation must include a manually operated, lockable, disconnect switch with a visual
break. The disconnect switch must be visible and accessible at all times by FCU personnel to allow
the GF to be disconnected safely during maintenance or outage conditions. In the case of a PV
system this disconnect switch must be located next to the FCU electric meter. In all cases the
disconnect switch must be rated to interrupt the maximum output of the generator and must be rated
for the voltage and fault current requirements of the GF and must meet all applicable NEMA, UL,
ANSI, IEEE, and NEC standards as well as local and state electrical codes. The disconnect switch
shall be permanently labeled with text indicating that the switch is for the GF. The labeling shall also
clearly indicate the open and closed position of the switch. The disconnect switch must be located on
the output or load side of the GF such that the entire GF can be isolated from FCU distribution
system. If the site contains several generators, a single disconnect switch may be used providing its
rating is sufficient for all generators and opening it produces a visible open point between all
generators and the FCU system.
Other devices such as circuit breakers or fuses may be considered as a substitute for a disconnect
switch if each of the following conditions is met:
a) If a circuit breaker is used it is draw-out and capable of being locked into the
disconnected position
b) If a fuse is used it is capable of being removed from the bus to provide a visual open
point
c) The Operator or Operator’s agents are available at all times to disconnect and remove
this breaker or fuses whenever requested by FCU
All lock-out and tag-out capabilities must also be available for the devices used and must be
assessable to FCU personnel.
3.3 Dedicated Transformer and Additional Primary Protection
If the GF rating is greater than 50kW the GF must be connected to the FCU by a dedicated
transformer. The transformer must meet FCU standards and design criteria. The transformer must
be labeled according to FCU practices.
Most interconnecting transformers on the FCU system are protected with fuses. However, if a GF is
rated at 1500 kVA or above, FCU may determine the fuse protection is insufficient to properly protect
the FCU system. In this case, FCU may require that a dedicated three-phase interrupting device
such as a recloser must be added to the transformer high-voltage side along with necessary
relaying.. Moreover, any GF whose connection to the FCU distribution system increases the
aggregate generation on any feeder, transformer, or portion of a feeder to 1500 kVA or above is
subject to a separate study by FCU, and FCU may require the addition of a three-phase protective
device on the primary side of the system.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 10
3.4 Interrupting Devices Required
Circuit breakers or other interrupting devices located at the Point of Common Coupling (PCC) must
be certified or "Listed" (as defined in Article 100, the Definitions Section of the National Electrical
Code) as suitable for their intended application. This includes being capable of interrupting the
maximum available fault current expected at their location. The Operator’s GF Facility and
associated interconnection equipment must be designed so that the failure of any single device will
not potentially compromise the safety and reliability of FCU’s distribution system.
3.5 System Protective Functions
The protective functions and requirements contained in this document are designed to protect FCU’s
distribution system and not specifically the Operator’s GF. The Operator is solely responsible for
providing adequate protection for the GF and all associated equipment. The Operator’s protective
devices must not impact the operation of other protective devices utilized on the FCU distribution
system in a manner that would affect FCU's ability to provide reliable service to its customers.
The GF’s protective functions must sense abnormal conditions and disconnect the GF from the FCU
distribution system during abnormal conditions. All GFs must be capable of sensing line-line-line,
line-line, and line-ground faults on the distribution feeder supplying the GF and must disconnect from
the line to protect both the line from further damage and the generator from damage due to
excessive currents or unusual voltages. The settings of these relays will be coordinated with FCU
substation relaying.
For induction machines speed matching must be done automatically and shall match speed to less
that 5% before closing the associated breaker.
The minimum protective functions needed for various types of generators, and other requirements
for system protection are shown below. Any machine that is not included in one of the following
categories must be individually considered by FCU.
3.5.1 Synchronous Machines above 50kW to 100kW
a) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
b) Over current trip functions. (50/51) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a
fuse.
c) Ground fault protection (50/51G)
d) Over and under frequency functions. (81O/U)
e) Sync Check (25)
f) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
g) A function to prevent the GF from contributing to the formation of an unintended island
and to prevent the GF from reconnecting with the distribution system under abnormal
conditions is required.
h) Relay settings and test reports will be submitted to FCU for review. FCU will determine
if an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.2 Synchronous Machines 100kW to and including 1000kW
a) Interrupting devices must be 3-phase circuit breakers with electrical operation.
b) Relays must be utility grade (must meet IEEE Std.C37.90, C37.91, C37.92 and C37.93)
and must be independent from the generator control devices.
c) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
d) Voltage restrained over current trip functions. (50/51V)
e) Ground fault protection (50/51G)
f) Over and under frequency functions. (81O/U)
g) Sync Check (25)
h) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 11
i) Reverse power (32)
j) A function to prevent the GF from contributing to the formation of an unintended island
and to prevent the GF from reconnecting with the distribution system under abnormal
conditions is required.
k) Relay settings and test reports will be submitted to FCU for review. FCU will determine if
an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.3 Synchronous Machines 1000kW to and including 5000kW
a) Interrupting devices must be 3-phase circuit breakers with electrical operation.
b) Relays must be utility grade (must meet IEEE Std.C37.90, C37.91, C37.92 and C37.93)
and must be independent from the generator control devices.
c) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
d) Voltage restrained over current trip functions. (50/51V)
e) Ground fault protection (50/51G)
f) Over and under frequency functions. (81O/U)
g) Negative Sequence Current (46)
h) Loss of Field (40)
i) Sync Check (25)
j) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
k) Reverse power (32)
l) A function to prevent the GF from contributing to the formation of an unintended island
and to prevent the GF from reconnecting with the distribution system under abnormal
conditions is required.
m) Relay settings and test reports will be submitted to FCU for review.
3.5.4 Doubly-Fed Induction Machines above 50kW to 100kW
a) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
b) Over current trip functions. (50/51) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a
fuse.
c) Ground fault protection (50/51G) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a fuse
d) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
e) Speed matching to within 5% (15)
f) If it is determined that it is possible for the machine to self-excite in this installation, the
GF must include a function to prevent the GF from contributing to the formation of an
unintended island and to prevent the GF from reconnecting with the distribution system
under abnormal conditions. If it is determined that the machine cannot self-excite,
evidence must be provided to FCU proving that this is the case and anti-islanding
protection is not required. If such evidence does not meet FCU approval, anti-islanding
protection is required.
g) Relay settings and test reports must be submitted to FCU for review. FCU will
determine if an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.5 Doubly-Fed Induction Machines 100kW to 5000kW
a) Interrupting devices must be 3-phase circuit breakers with electrical operation.
b) Relays must be utility grade (must meet IEEE Std.C37.90, C37.91, C37.92 and C37.93)
and must be independent from the generator control devices.
c) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
d) Over current trip functions. (50/51) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a
fuse.
e) Ground fault protection (50/51G) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a fuse
f) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
g) Negative sequence current (46)
h) Over and under frequency (81 O/U)
i) Reverse power (32)
j) Speed matching to within 5% (15)
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 12
k) If it is determined that it is possible for the machine to self-excite in this installation the
GF must include a function to prevent the GF from contributing to the formation of an
unintended island and to prevent the GF from reconnecting with the distribution system
under abnormal conditions. If it is determined that the machine cannot self-excite,
evidence must be provided to FCU proving that this is the case and anti-islanding
protection is not required. If such evidence does not meet FCU approval, anti-islanding
protection is required.
l) Relay settings and test reports must be submitted to FCU for review. FCU will
determine if an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.6 Induction Machines above 50kW to 100kW
a) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
b) Over current trip functions. (50/51) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a
fuse.
c) Ground fault protection (50/51G) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a fuse
d) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
e) Speed matching to within 5% (15)
f) If it is determined that it is possible for the machine to self-excite in this installation the
GF must include a function to detect and trip the unit during a self excited condition. This
will prevent system over voltages and also prevent the GF from contributing to the
formation of an unintended island. If it is determined that the machine cannot self-excite,
evidence must be provided to FCU proving that this is the case and this protection is not
required. If such evidence does not meet FCU approval, anti-islanding protection is
required.
g) Relay settings and test reports must be submitted to FCU for approval. FCU will
determine if an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.7 Induction Machines 100kW to 5000kW
a) Interrupting devices must be 3-phase circuit breakers with electrical operation.
b) Relays must be utility grade (must meet IEEE Std.C37.90, C37.91, C37.92 and C37.93)
and must be independent from the generator control devices.
c) Over and under voltage functions (27/59)
d) Over current trip functions. (50/51) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a
fuse.
e) Ground fault protection (50/51G) which may be included in a breaker trip-unit or a fuse
f) Phase-sequence or negative sequence voltage (47)
g) Negative sequence current (46)
h) Over and under frequency (81 O/U)
i) Reverse power (32)
j) Speed matching to within 5% (15)
k) If it is determined that it is possible for the machine to self-excite in this installation the
GF must include a function to detect and trip the unit during a self excited condition. This
will prevent system over voltages and also prevent the GF from contributing to the
formation of an unintended island. If it is determined that the machine cannot self-excite,
evidence must be provided to FCU proving that this is the case and this protection is not
required. If such evidence does not meet FCU approval, anti-islanding protection is
required.
l) Relay settings and test reports will be submitted to FCU for review. FCU will determine
if an on-site inspection is required.
3.5.8 Inverter Connected Systems 1000 kW and Below
This may include photovoltaic systems (PV), some wind turbines, fuel cells, microturbines
and all other machines that deliver their power to the utility system via an inverter or
converter utilizing power electronics.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 13
a) The Inverter must be tested to meet IEEE 1547, and IEEE 1547.1. One way to meet this
requirement is to be tested to UL1741. However, it is not required that this testing be
done by Underwriters Laboratories. Any recognized testing lab which confirms that the
inverter meets IEEE 1547, and IEEE 1547.1 is satisfactory. If the inverter does not carry
a UL sticker, FCU must be supplied with a letter from the manufacturer or an
independent testing laboratory stating the inverter has been tested and meets the above
IEEE standards.
b) FCU will require over current trip functions (50/51) which may be included in a breaker
trip-unit or a fuse. This device must be separate from the inverter control system and
internal disconnect device.
c) FCU will determine if an on-site inspection is required to observe calibration and testing
of the inverter functions.
3.5.9 Inverter Connected Systems above 1000 kW to 5000kW
This may include photovoltaic systems (PV) some wind turbines, fuel cells, microturbines
and all other machines that deliver their power to the utility system via an inverter or
converter utilizing power electronics.
a) The Inverter must be tested to meet IEEE 1547, and IEEE 1547.1. One way to meet this
requirement is to be tested to UL1741. However, it is not required that this testing be
done by Underwriters Laboratories. Any recognized testing lab which confirms that the
inverter meets IEEE 1547, and IEEE 1547.1 is satisfactory. If the inverter does not carry
a UL sticker, FCU must be supplied with a letter from the manufacturer or an
independent testing laboratory stating the inverter has been tested and meets the above
IEEE standards.
b) FCU will require over current trip functions (50/51) which may be included in a breaker
trip-unit or a fuse. This device must be separate from the inverter control system and
internal disconnect device.
c) Ground fault protection (50/51G) which may be included in a breaker trip unit. This
device must be separate from the inverter control system and internal disconnect device.
d) Over and under frequency (81 O/U). This device must be separate from the inverter
control system and internal disconnect device.
e) Over and under voltage functions (27/59). This device must be separate from the
inverter control system and internal disconnect device.
f) FCU will determine if an on-site inspection is required to observe calibration and testing
of the inverter and relay functions.
3.5.10 All machines above 5000kW
Any type of GF of this size must be studied and considered individually by FCU.
3.6 Momentary Paralleling Generation Facilities
At times an Operator may decide to install a system that may operate parallel to the FCU system
only momentarily (normally less than 0.1 seconds). With FCU’s approval, the transfer switch or
system used to transfer the Operator’s loads from FCU’s distribution system to the Operator’s GF
may be used in lieu of the protective functions required for parallel operation.
4.0 Facility Grounding
In all cases the GF grounding system must not adversely impact FCU grounding or ground fault protective
relaying. The GF grounding must not cause high voltages to occur under any condition either normally
occurring or occurring during a system fault such as allowing high voltages to exist on the un-faulted phases
during a single-line-to-ground fault.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 14
4.1 Equipment Bonding Conductor
The Operator must install an equipment-grounding conductor, in addition to the ungrounded
conductors and grounded conductor (neutral), between the GF and the distribution system. The
grounding conductor must be permanent, electrically continuous, and must be capable of safely
carrying the maximum fault current that could be imposed it by the systems to which it is
connected. Additionally, the equipment-grounding conductor must be of sufficiently low impedance to
facilitate the operation of over current protection devices under fault conditions. All conductors shall
comply with the National Electrical Code (NEC). The GF must not be designed or implemented such
that the earth becomes the sole fault current path.
4.2 Surge Protection
It is strongly recommended but not required that a surge protective device (SPD) be utilized to
protect GF equipment.
4.3 System Grounding
FCU maintains an effectively grounded distribution system and requires that all GFs be designed to
contribute to an effectively grounded system. Effective grounding prevents the occurrence of
excessively high voltages during ground faults and protects existing FCU equipment. Effective
grounding of the GF may desensitize existing FCU ground fault protection, which could require FCU
ground fault relay settings changes or modifications in the design of the GF. The transformer
supplied to interconnect the GF voltage to the FCU system will normally be a grounded-wye to
grounded-wye transformer. This connection will not provide a grounding source by itself and will not
provide an effectively grounded system from the GF side of the interconnection unless effective
grounding of GF is provided. When designing the grounding system for the GF, the designer should
consider the condition that will result when a ground fault occurs on the line serving the GF. This
ground fault would be cleared on the FCU side of the line by opening a breaker or recloser in the
FCU substation. This will result in momentarily islanding the line on the GF until it opens its breaker.
Under this condition, where the line is islanded and being supplied by the GF, the system must
remain effectively grounded.
Effective grounding shall be defined by IEEE Std.142 which states that to be considered effectively
grounded both of the following two conditions must be met:
a) The ratio of zero-sequence reactance to positive-sequence reactance (X0/X1) must be
positive and three or less.
b) The ratio of zero-sequence resistance to positive-sequence reactance (R0/X1) must be
positive and less than 1.
The GF system equivalent (Thevenin equivalent) impedance must meet the criteria for effective
grounding stated above. The networks used in determining this impedance, and other fault current
calculations for the plant, will include the positive, negative, and zero sequence networks of the step-
up transformer connected to the FCU system, all other transformers between the generator and the
point of common coupling, the generator subtransient, positive, negative and zero sequence values,
the neutral grounding device for the generator, the grounding transformer and neutral grounding
device (if used) and any significant cable runs. The GF shall maintain an effectively grounded
system under normal operating conditions while operating in connection with FCU lines.
The short circuit contribution ratio (SCCR) of the GF is defined as the ratio of the GF short circuit
contribution to FCU’s contribution to a short circuit (IscGF/IscFCU) for either a three-phase or single-
line-to ground fault measured at the high voltage side of the transformer stepping up from the
generation voltage to the FCU voltage.
The GF must be grounded in such a way that the SCCR for a line-ground fault calculated at the high
voltage side of the transformer connecting the GF to FCU is less than 3% while still achieving
effective grounding as defined above. If this SCCR ratio is greater than 3% FCU must do a study to
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 15
determine if re-setting ground fault relays on the existing FCU system is required. In rare cases
connecting a certain GF to a particular feeder may not be practical due to protection issues or
special protection techniques may be needed to make the connection safe.
Proper grounding of the GF can be achieved in a number of ways. FCU may at its discretion accept
any of the following methods:
a) Solidly grounding the generator or installing a solidly grounded grounding transformer
(zig-zag or grounded wye-delta transformer). While a solidly grounded generator is
acceptable to FCU if all other requirements are met, it must be used with care. ANSI
standards generally require that for a synchronous generator the ground fault current
must be limited to the three-phase fault current. This usually requires a resistance or
reactance be used for grounding the generator neutral. Also, a solidly grounded
generator may conduct large amounts of harmonic currents. There may be some
unbalanced voltage at the terminals of the generator. This can cause circulating current
through the generator if it is solidly grounded which may make de-rating of the generator
necessary. If a solidly grounded system is used the designer must consider and plan for
all issues that may result.
b) Resistance grounding. A resistance grounded generator or grounding transformer with
a resistance placed between neutral and ground may be used if it meets the
requirements of effective grounding.
c) Reactance grounding. A reactance grounded generator or grounding transformer with a
reactor between the transformer neutral and ground may be used if it meets the
requirements of effective grounding.
d) Other methods may be suggested for consideration by FCU.
If the Operator desires to generate at the FCU primary voltage and to connect the generators directly
to the FCU system without the use of an interconnecting transformer, FCU must first conduct a study
of the connection. FCU will determine, as a result of the study, the grounding and other
requirements necessary for this type of connection.
5.0 Prevention of Interference and Unacceptable Operating Conditions
The Operator must not operate the GF in any way that causes a system disturbance or that superimposes a
voltage or current upon FCU’s distribution system that results in interference with FCU operations, service to
FCU’s customers, or other FCU equipment and facilities. When FCU suspects that interference with electric
service to other FCU customers is occurring, and such interference exceeds FCU Standards, FCU reserves
the right at its expense to install special test equipment as may be required to perform a disturbance analysis
and monitor the operation of the GF to evaluate the quality of power produced. If the GF is demonstrated to
be the source of the interference, and it is demonstrated that the interference produced exceeds FCU
Standards or generally accepted industry standards, FCU may, without liability, disconnect the GF from the
FCU distribution system.It shall be the responsibility of the Operator to eliminate any interference caused by
the GF and the Operator must diligently pursue and take corrective action, at the Operator’s own expense, to
eliminate undesirable interference caused by the GF. The GF will be reconnected to the FCU system only
after the Operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of FCU that the cause of the interference has been
remedied.
The Operator’s protective devices must prevent the GFs from contributing to an island. If the FCU feeder to
which the GF is connected is de-energized for any reason, the GF must sense this and disconnect itself
within 2 seconds of the de-energization of the feeder.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 16
5.1 Voltage Regulation
The GF shall not actively regulate the voltage at the point of common coupling (PCC) unless the
effects of this are first reviewed and approved by FCU. If a study has been done by FCU which
determines that it is advantageous for a GF to actively control its voltage, FCU will inform the
Operator and the Operator will be required to control the GF’s terminal voltage.
5.2 System Voltage
The voltage operating range limits for GFs shall be used as a protection function that responds to
abnormal conditions on FCU’s distribution system. The FCU voltage operating range is normally -
95% to 105% of the nominal voltage at the electrical service point, and 92% to 105% of nominal
voltage at the utilization point, as required by ANSI C84.1. All GFs must be capable of operating
within the voltage range normally experienced on FCU’s distribution system. Ocassional excursions
outside this range may occur, and tripping of the GF is not suggested until the voltage range is less
than 88% or more than 110% of the nominal voltage. The operating range and GF protection shall be
selected in a manner that minimizes nuisance tripping between 88% and 110% of nominal voltage.
GFs must not energize or, after a trip, re-energize FCU’s circuits whenever the voltage at the PCC
deviates from the allowable voltage operating range allowed by ANSI C84.1 Table 1 voltage range
(95-105% of nominal voltage at the service or 92-105% of nominal voltage at the utilization point).
Whenever the FCU distribution system voltage at the PCC varies from normal (nominally 120 volts)
by the amounts as set forth in Table 5-1 the GF’s protective functions shall disconnect the
generator(s) from the FCU distribution system with delay times no longer than those shown.
Table 5-1: Voltage trip settings.
(Adapted from IEEE 1547-2003 and ANSI C84.1-2006)
Voltage at Point of Common
Coupling (% of base Voltage)
Maximum Tripping Time Delay
(seconds/cycles)
V-PCC < 50% 0.16 / 10
50% < V-PCC < 88% 2.0 / 120
92% < V-PCC < / 105% Normal operating range
110% < V-PCC < 120% 1.0 / 60
120% < V-PCC 0.16 / 10
5.3 System Frequency
The GF shall operate in synchronism with the FCU distribution system. Whenever FCU’s distribution
system frequency at the PCC varies from normal (nominally 60 Hertz) by the amounts as set forth in
Table 5-2 the GF’s protective functions shall disconnect the generator(s) from the FCU distribution
system with delay times no longer than those shown.
Table 5-2: Frequency Settings
(Adapted from IEEE 1547-2003 and NERC PRC-024-1)
GF Facility Size Frequency (Hz) Maximum Tripping Time
Delay
(sec./cycles)
GF<59.3 0.16/10
59.3 ≤ GF ≤ 60.5 Continuous Operation
GF 30kW or Less
GF>60.5 0.16/10
GF<57.8 0.16/10
57.8 ≤ GF ≤ 58.0 4/240
58.0 < GF ≤ 58.5 40/2,400
GF > 30kW
58.5 < GF ≤ 59.0 200/12,000
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 17
59.0 < GF < 59.5 1,800/108,000
59.5 ≤ GF ≤ 60.5 Continuous Operation
60.5 < GF ≤ 61.5 600/36,000
61.5 < GF 0.16/10
Unless some other anti-islanding scheme is employed, the GF should disconnect due to low
frequency resulting from islanding the feeder load on the GF. The frequency settings must be
adjusted to insure that, during the lowest loading level on the feeder, the resulting frequency change
of the GF when it is islanded with those feeder loads , should cause the under frequency relaying to
disconnect the the generators within two seconds.
5.4 Synchronization
Synchronous machine automatic synchronizers and sync-check relays must be set as shown in
Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Synchronizer/sync check relay settings.
(Adapted from IEEE 1547-2003)
Rating of GF (kVA) Maximum Slip Rate
(Hz)
Maximum Voltage
Difference (%V)
Maximum Phase
Angle Difference
(deg).
0-500 0.3 10 20
500-1500 0.2 5 10
1500 and above 0.1 3 10
5.5 Flicker
Any voltage flicker at the PCC caused by the GF should not exceed the limits defined by the
“Maximum Borderline of Irritation Curve” identified in IEEE 519, IEEE 141, and IEE 1453. This limit
is shown in Figure 5-1. This requirement is necessary to minimize the adverse voltage effects which
may be experienced by other customers on the FCU distribution system due to the operation of the
GF. Induction generators may only be connected to the system and brought up to synchronous
speed (as an induction motor) if these flicker limits are not exceeded.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 18
Figure 5-1: Allowable voltage flicker vs. time (reproduced from IEEE Std. 141).
5.6 Harmonics
Harmonic distortion measured at the PCC must be in compliance with IEEE 519 and IEEE 1547.
Harmonic current injection limits are shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Maximum harmonic current distortion as a percentage of fundamental
frequency at the point of common coupling.
(Adapted from IEEE 1547-2003)
Individual Harmonic Order h (Odd Harmonics Only)
h<11 11≤h<17 17≤h<23 23≤h<35 35≤h TDD
4.0 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.3 5.0
The even harmonic limits must be 25% of those shown in Table 5-4.
GF’s must not inject direct current greater than 0.5% of rated output into the FCU distribution system.
Any device causing a DC offset such as a half-wave converter shall not be allowed.
5.7 Power Factor
The power factor at the point of common coupling (PCC) with FCU (the low voltage terminals of the
transformer connecting the GF to FCU) shall always remain within 0.95 lagging (VARs going into the
site) to 0.95 leading (Vars going out of the site). The only exception to this requirement is a GF
consisting of an inverter connected generator 10 kW or less. For this exception it is expected that
the site power factor will deteriorate anytime the GF is operating, and FCU will provide the VARs
needed at the site. However the site power factor must be maintained such that it would remain
within the limits stated above if the GF was not operating and, as a result, the power factor was
allowed to revert to the value it had before the GF was added.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 19
a)
Each synchronous generator in a GF shall be capable of operating at any point within a power factor
range of 0.95 leading (Vars going into the generator) to 0.95 lagging (Vars going out of the
generator). Synchronous generators should automatically control power factor and should be set to
deliver VARs to the system as needed to keep the power factor at the PCC with FCU to the range
required by this section.
For generators other than synchronous generators, operation outside this power factor range is
acceptable provided the cumulative power factor of the customer’s entire facility is kept within the
range noted. This may be done using capacitor banks, controlling the inverter settings, adding static
VAR compensators (SVC) or synchronous condensers, or other means agreeable to both the GF
and FCU. If capacitor banks are used they shall be sized and installed per IEEE Stds. 18, 1036,
C37.012, C37.06, C37.66, and 1015. Capacitors may need to be stepped and switched to meet the
power factor requirements above. Before the addition of capacitors the GF should completely study
the effects of the capacitor additions on the resonance conditions and harmonic values that will
result. If the GF’s addition of capacitors causes adverse resonance or harmonics effects on FCU’s
system, the GF shall be required to pay for any modifications needed to mitigate the problem.
6.0 Monitoring Provisions
The following monitoring and metering requirements must be met by any Operator connecting a GF to the
FCU system.
.
6.1 Metering
GFs larger than 10kW and less than or equal to 100 kW require a minimum of a form 9s metering
installation.
GFs larger than 100 kW will require revenue metering capable of recording the following
components:
a) Time of use (TOU)
b) Harmonic measuring capability
c) Four quadrant capability
d) MV90 capable
e) Form 9S
f) The revenue meter must measure the aggregate load of the Operator’s facility including
the GF.
6.2 Monitoring and Control Requirements
Each non-inverter connected generating facility of 100 kW or larger shall be required, at the
discretion of FCU, to have FCU supplied equipment that will be used for monitoring and control of
the facility. The Operator shall be responsible for all hardware, software, and any installation costs
of FCU provided equipment associated with the co-gen installation. FCU will provide a remote
monitoring and control equipment enclosure containing the following equipment at the Operator’s
expense:
• 900 MHZ spread spectrum radio
• SEL 351 relay
• Terminal blocks as required
• Various control switches, CT blocks, etc as required
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 20
• UPS power supply with battery backup
A YAGI antenna will be provided and shall be installed by the Operator at a location designated by
FCU. The Operator will be responsible for installing the antenna coax specified by FCU. The
Operator must use a certified installer to terminate the coax. The Operator shall also be responsible
for mounting the equipment enclosure.
The monitoring and control system shall be designed to allow FCU to perform the following:
• Trip the generator breaker for unstable system conditions such as frequency, voltage
and fault conditions
• Place a HOT LINE TAG on the generator breaker that would block its close circuit to
prevent its closing
• Initiate a generator startup thru SCADA for future power dispatching by FCU (This would
normally be blocked locally unless requested by the Operator.)
• Monitor the generator breaker status to determine if the generator is on or off line
• Monitor generator output power(real and reactive), voltage, harmonics etc. (This will
require current and voltage inputs from the GF equipment.)
The GF Operator must provide all the necessary interface design to accomplish the functions listed
above. The GF Operator must submit drawings of the proposed design to FCU for review.
7.0 Testing
7.1 Commissioning Tests
In addition to any commissioning tests required by the owner of the GF or manufacturer of
equipment used, the following tests must be performed before operation of the GF. The Operator
must notify FCU two weeks in advance of the time of the testing so that a FCU representative may
observe any tests required by FCU.
a) Visual inspection to ensure proper grounding.
b) Visual inspection shall confirm the presence of the isolation device described in section
3.2 and the device shall be tested for operation.
c) Trip tests must be performed to prove each device which is required to trip any breaker
is capable of doing so.
d) Relays or protective functions provided by the generator manufacture must be tested
and relay test reports must be made available to FCU. All of the functions required in
Section 3.5 must be tested. Inverter connected devices tested by an independent
testing laboratory as required in Section 3.5 are not be required to perform this test.
e) In the case of a synchronous generator the Operator must prove that the generator is
connected to the system with the proper phase rotation and that all three phases of
generator voltage match those of the system at the same instant in time. This test is
commonly known as “phasing out” the generator.
f) In the case of a synchronous generator the Operator must prove that the generator
synchronizer and sync check relay is capable of connecting the generator to the system
properly and in synchronism. This test must be done before the generator is allowed to
actually connect to the system.
g) The ability of the control system to disconnect the generator within two seconds in the
event of islanding must be tested.
7.2 Periodic Maintenance Tests
An Operator must maintain his or her equipment in good order and in compliance with all
manufacturers suggested periodic maintenance. If it is discovered that an Operator is not properly
maintaining his or her equipment, FCU may disconnect the GF until such time that the Operator can
prove that he or she has provided all required maintenance needed to allow the GF to operate
properly and safely.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 21
FCU reserves the right to inspect the GF equipment whenever it appears the GF is operating in a
manner that is hazardous to the FCU system.
Functional testing must be performed every year to prove the proper operation of the isolation device
and all breakers and relays. For all GFs consisting of synchronous machines with aggregate ratings
of larger than 1000kW, no less than once every three years all protective functions must be re-tested
and calibrated to prove their operation complies with the requirements contained in this document.
The Operator must maintain written records of these tests and these records will be made available
to FCU on request.
Battery systems used for generator control or protective relaying must be maintained and periodically
tested as suggested by the battery manufacturer.
7.3 Qualified Personnel
All testing and calibration shall be done by qualified personnel. FCU will provide a list of contractors
qualified to provide this service.
8.0 Design Changes
After the GF begins operation any design changes, such as the addition of more generation, must be
submitted to FCU for review. Protective devices or any other requirements listed in this document
must not be modified or their settings changed without approval of FCU.
9.0 Liability and Insurance
In no event shall FCU be held responsible for the safety, reliability, design, or protection of the GF.
Compliance with these interconnection standards does not mean the GF is safe to operate and the
Operator is solely responsible for making a determination about whether the GF is safe to operate.
Nothing herein shall be construed to create any duty to, any standard of care with reference to, or
any liability to any person who is not a party to an arrangement or agreement between FCU and the
Operator pursuant to these requirements. FCU is not liable for damages caused to the facilities,
improvements or equipment of the Operator by reason of the operation, faulty operation or non-
operation of FCU facilities.
To the extent permitted by law, tThe Operator shall be solely responsible for and shall defend,
indemnify and hold FCU harmless from and against any and all claims or causes of action for
personal injury, death, property damage, loss or violation of governmental laws, regulations or
orders, which injury, death, damage, loss or violations occurs on or is caused by operation of
equipment or facilities on the Operator’s side of the point of connection. Notwithstanding the above
and to the extent permitted by law, the Operator shall be solely responsible for and shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless FCU from and against any and all claims or causes of action for
personal injury, death, property damage or loss or violation of governmental laws, regulations or
orders, wherever occurring, which injury, death, damage, loss or violation is due solely to the acts of
omissions of such Operator, including but not limited to the use of defective equipment or faulty
installation or maintenance or equipment by such party. However, nothing contained in this section
shall be construed as relieving or releasing either party from liability or personal injury, death,
property damage or loss, or violation of governmental laws, regulations or orders, wherever
occurring, resulting from its own negligence or the negligence of any of its officers, servants, agents
or employees. In the event of concurrent negligence, liability shall be apportioned between the
parties according to each party’s respective fault. Neither the Operator nor FCU shall be liable to the
other or any other third party, in contract or in tort or otherwise, for loss of use of equipment and
Deleted: T
Deleted:
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 22
related expenses, expense involving cost of capital, claims of customers of FCU or the Operator, as
applicable, loss of profits or revenues, cost of purchase or replacement power, or any indirect,
incidental or consequential loss or damage whatsoever.
The Operator shall pay all costs that may be incurred by FCU in enforcing the indemnity described
herein. Each party’s liability to the other party for any loss, cost, claim, injury, liability, or expense,
including reasonable attorney’s fees, relating to or arising from any act or omission in its
performance of this agreement, shall be limited to the amount of direct damage actually incurred. In
no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, incidental, special,
consequential, or punitive damages of any kind whatsoever.
For systems of ten kW or more, the Operator, at its own expense, except when the Operator is a
governmental entity that self-insures in accordance with Colorado law, shall secure and maintain in
effect during connection of its GF to the FCU system, liability insurance with a combined single limit
for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars)
each occurrence. Such liability insurance shall not exclude coverage for any incident related to the
subject GF or its operation. Except when the Operator is a governmental entity that self-insures in
accordance with Colorado law, FCU shall be named as an additional insured under the liability
policy. For systems above 500 kW and up to one megawatt, the Operator, at its own expense,
except when the Operator is a governmental entity that self-insures in accordance with Colorado law,
shall secure and maintain in effect during connection of its GC to the FCU system, liability insurance
with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $2,000,000 (Two
Million Dollars) for each occurrence. Insurance coverage for systems greater than one megawatt
shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by FCU and shall reflect the size of the installation and
the potential for system damage. Any insurance policy required herein shall include that written
notice be given to FCU at least 30 days prior to any cancellation or reduction of any coverage. Such
liability insurance shall provide, by endorsement to the policy, that FCU shall not by reason of its
inclusion as an additional insured incur liability to the insurance carrier for the payment of premium of
such insurance. A copy of the liability insurance certificate must be received by FCU prior to GF
operation. Certificates of insurance evidencing the requisite coverage and provision(s) shall be
furnished to FCU prior to date of interconnection of the generation system. FCU shall be permitted
to periodically obtain proof of current insurance coverage from the Operator in order to verify proper
liability insurance coverage. The Operator will not be allowed to commence or continue
interconnected operations unless evidence is provided that satisfactory insurance coverage is in
effect at all times.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 23
APPENDIX A-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INDUCTION GENERATOR BETWEEN 50KW AND 100KW
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 24
APPENDIX B-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INVERTER CONNECTED GENERATOR BELOW 1000KW.
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 25
APPENDIX C-TYPICAL ONE-LINE SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR 50KW AND ABOVE
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 26
APPENDIX D-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INDUCTION GENERATOR LARGER THAN 100KW
EXHIBIT A
Rev 9.0 July 2011 27
APPENDIX E-TYPICAL ONE-LINE INVERTER CONNECTED GENERATOR LARGER THAN 1000KW
EXHIBIT A
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves for the Affordable
Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank Program. All of the authorized
expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for which the dollars were originally appropriated could not
be completed during 2010. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, reappropriates
$295,821 and is necessary for completion of the projects in 2011. These unexpended monies lapsed into the General
Fund balance at the end of 2010 and reflect no change in Council policies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 19, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: July 19, 2011
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year Reserves for the Affordable Housing
Fund and Land Bank Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank Program. All of the authorized
expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for which the dollars were originally appropriated could not
be completed during 2010. Reappropriation of $295,821 is necessary for completion of the projects in 2011. These
unexpended monies lapsed into the General Fund balance at the end of 2010 and reflect no change in Council
policies.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The following items have historically been included in the Ordinance Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, but were
inadvertently omitted when this ordinance (Ordinance No. 042, 2011) was considered by Council on April 19, 2011.
Money from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was not approved for allocation to various agencies by the City
Council until completion of the fall cycle of the competitive process in November 2010. In many cases, the City’s
funding represents the first dollars committed to specific projects, then agencies seek additional funding from sources
such as the Colorado Division of Housing, the Colorado Housing Finance Authority, or the Federal Home Loan Bank.
City funds are not given final commitment nor are contracts signed until the City is reasonably assured the projects
have the necessary financial support to be completed. Therefore, the affordable housing funds in the amount of
$284,382 for these agencies need to be re-appropriated to fulfill the City’s commitment to provide funding for their
specific projects.
The Land Bank Program is a self-sustaining program in that rental income from the Land Bank properties provides
a source of funds for routine maintenance and/or necessary or emergency repairs. The repairs and maintenance of
these properties could not be completed by year-end. Staff is requesting that the unspent funds in the amount of
$11,439 be re-appropriated back into the Land Bank Program so that the repairs and maintenance can be completed
as needed.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2011 appropriations by $295,821 in the General Fund. This appropriation represents the
amounts budgeted in 2010 that could not be spent or encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are from General
Fund 2010 prior year reserves.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LAND BANK PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the City Council allocated Affordable Housing funds to various agencies
during the fall cycle of the competitive process in November 2010; and
WHEREAS, Affordable Housing appropriations that were not expended at the end of
2010 lapsed into the General Fund reserves and City staff recommends that the City Council
appropriate those funds to fulfill the City’s commitment to provide for the Affordable Housing
program projects; and
WHEREAS, unexpended appropriations for Land Bank property repairs and maintenance
also lapsed at the end of 2010 into General Fund reserves and need to be appropriated into 2011
so the repairs can be completed as needed; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations
unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or
special fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not
lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state
grant; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE DOLLARS ($295,821) for the following purposes:
Affordable Housing Program $ 284,382
Land Bank Program 11,439
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
July, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Jin Wang
Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department
of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue
Bridge Replacement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, appropriates fund from three grants received
from the federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932. This funding contract between
the City and Colorado Department of Transportation is for the replacement of two structurally deficient bridges owned
by the City. The two bridges are Shields Street Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, near Rolland Moore Park, and
Laporte Avenue Bridge over the Arthur Ditch, between Shields Street and College Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 19, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: July 19, 2011
STAFF: Jin Wang
Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and LaPorte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
A. Resolution 2011-058 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the Colorado Department of
Transportation for the Construction of the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge
Replacement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado
Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and
Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department has been awarded three grants from the federally funded Colorado
Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932. This funding contract between the City and Colorado Department
of Transportation is for the replacement of two structurally deficient bridges owned by the City. The two bridges are
Shields Street Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, and Laporte Avenue Bridge over the Arthur Ditch.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Bridges are an important element of the roadway network. An inadequate bridge can cause various capacity and
safety problems on roadways. A road will not be able to function if it is disconnected because of a bridge that has
failed. Based on federal bridge inspection standards, both the Shields Street Bridge and the Laporte Avenue Bridge
are identified as structurally deficient. This means that both bridges are in advanced stages of deterioration and do
not have the desired load carrying capacities. Replacing these bridges will eliminate unsafe situations which could
potentially result in property damage and loss of life.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City was awarded three grants from federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932.
These grants are for replacement of two qualifying bridges, Shields Street Bridge near Rolland Moore and the Laporte
Avenue Bridge. Shields Street Bridge was scheduled to be funded with 2011 Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) monies
and Laporte Avenue Bridge was scheduled for 2012 KFCG funding. The federal grant award has presented the
opportunity to offset the 2011 KFCG allocation, and use those funds for the design of two other high priority bridge
projects, as well as the construction of the Laporte Avenue Bridge in 2011. Planning, Development & Transportation
is planning to reassign KFCG dollars initially intended for the Shields Street Bridge project to the design of the Prospect
and West Mulberry bridge projects, and to accelerate construction of the Laporte Avenue Bridge project.
The estimated total cost of Shields Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement Project is
$3,136,131, which is to be funded as follows:
Federal Funds $2,225,932
Local Agency Matching Funds (2011 BFO Offer 146.14) $ 556,483
Local Agency Overmatch Funds (2011 BFO Offer 146.14) $ 353,716
Total Project Funds $3,136,131
The two bridges are classified as structurally deficient. These bridges are failing and need to be replaced. If allowed
to fail, an emergency bridge replacement can cost up to 50% more than a planned bridge replacement. The proactive
completion of both bridge replacements will provide continued accessibility to businesses, parks and residences.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project will have a positive impact on long term air quality. Vehicles that are currently restricted by the bridge
weight limit posted will be able to drive over the replacement bridge, instead of using a longer alternative route, thus
reducing greenhouse gas emission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Transportation Board was briefed on both Bridges Replacement Projects, most recently in February 2011, and
will receive updates as the project progresses.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Project Team has met with property owners adjacent to the bridge. The Team is also working with utility
companies that have services over or under the existing bridge. Public outreach will be intensified prior to, and during,
construction of the replacement bridges.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Area Map
2. Transportation Board minutes, February 16, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 091, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND FOR THE CITY BRIDGE PROGRAM PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City has been awarded three grants from the Colorado Department of
Transportation federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program totaling $2,225,932; and
WHEREAS, these three grants are for the replacement of the Shields Street Bridge over
Larimer Canal No. 2 near Rolland Moore Park and the Laporte Avenue Bridge over Arthur Ditch;
and
WHEREAS, based on federal bridge inspection standards, both the Shields Street Bridge and
the Laporte Avenue Bridge are in advanced stages of deterioration and have been identified as
structurally deficient because they do not have the desired load carrying capacities; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the Shields Street Bridge Replacement and the
Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement is $3,136,131which will be funded by federal grants
($2,225,932) and 2011 existing appropriations of ($910,199) which will fund the required match;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution 2011-058 authorizing the City to enter
into a contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the construction of the Shields
Street Bridge Replacement and the Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues during fiscal year 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
the sum of TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
THIRTY-TWO DOLLARS ($2,225,932) for expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund for the City
Bridge Program Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
July, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
Lisa Voytko, Steve Catanach
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase Agreement Contract
with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power generation project, with
a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a portion of electrical usage at the plant site. A third
party Photovoltaic system developer will design, construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power
project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 26, 2011, allows for a 20-year contract
between the system developer and the City.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The ninth Whereas clause of Ordinance No. 92, 2011 was deleted on Second Reading of this Ordinance because staff
has determined that including information about the City’s internal sustainability goal in relation to this particular project
may confuse the more important issue. The more important aspect of this project is that the City’s Water Treatment
Facility will meet a portion of its electric energy demand with renewable solar energy.
During First Reading, Council requested information on the external and internal sustainability goals for the City.
Attachment 2 provides a list of the key Fort Collins environmental goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 26, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Key Fort Collins Environmental Goals
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: July 26, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
Lisa Voytko, Steve Catanach
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
Items Relating to a Long-Term Solar Power Arrangement for the Water Treatment Facility.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase Agreement
Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
B. Resolution 2011-059 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to a Selected Solar Provider for the Use of the City
Water Treatment Facility Property for a Solar Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power generation project, with
a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a portion of electrical usage at the plant site. A third
party Photovoltaic system developer will design, construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power
project. This Ordinance allows for a 20-year contract between the system developer and the City. The Resolution
issues a revocable permit for use of a portion of land onsite of the Water Treatment Facility by the photovoltaic system
developer.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Water Treatment Facility is located in Larimer County and as such, receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy
instead of City Light and Power. Xcel Energy has a Solar Rewards program that gives third party entities rebates and
renewable energy credits for solar power generation. The City cannot take full advantage of the rebates and credits,
and instead, selects through a competitive process, a photovoltaic (PV) system developer who designs, constructs,
operates and maintains the solar system, and sells the power generated to the City, based on a negotiated fixed rate,
through a power purchase agreement.
The City received nine proposals, interviewed three firms, and is in the process of negotiating a power purchase
agreement with the selected solar system developer.
The proposed solar system will generate approximately 145,000 kWh per year. This system is not sized to supply the
entire electrical demand for the Water Treatment Facility, but will contribute significantly to the energy savings at the
plant.
This power purchase agreement is a 20-year contract between the PV system developer and the City. The City Code
provides that a multi-year contract for a period of 5 years must be authorized by ordinance.
The advantages of the power purchase agreement are:
• Fixed rate of electricity throughout the 20-year term, based on a negotiated initial price.
• The power generated will only be sold to the City at the Water Treatment Facility.
• No upfront capital costs for the City.
• No operation and maintenance costs for the duration of the contract
• Renewable energy on site to help attain the City’s sustainability goals.
• Ability to purchase the system, at fair market value, after year 5, if desired.
The Resolution authorizes the execution of a revocable permit to the Photovoltaic System Developer for the solar
project. It addresses the project site at the Water Treatment Facility site and its use by the PV system developer to
construct the solar system. The City Charter allows Council to grant a permit at any time for the use or occupation
of any public place.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 26, 2011 -2- ITEM 3
The site where the solar project will be located is within the security of the water treatment facility, and on raw land
that is not currently in use by the plant processes.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Water Treatment Facility utilizes electricity to treat drinking water for its customers. The power purchased from
the solar developer will offset a portion of that electrical power demand that must be purchased from Xcel Energy.
The advantage is the fixed rate of this portion of the power versus the expected increases in electrical costs from Xcel.
Over the 20-year term of the power purchase agreement, the estimated savings is $108,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This project will not impact the quantity and quality of drinking water produced. By replacing utility electricity with
renewable solar power, the Water Treatment Facility will continue to work towards the City’s internal sustainability goal
of reducing energy consumption by 20% of the 2005 baseline by 2020, and demand peak use by 15% by 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map for the Solar Project area
July 2011
KEY FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
Area Community Goals 2009 Municipal Sustainability Goals
Carbon
(GHG Emissions)
Communitywide Emissions (2008 Climate Action Plan)
• Reduce 20% below 2005 by 2020
• Reduce 80% below 2005 by 2050
• “Intent” to reduce 3% below 2005 by 2012
Municipal Carbon
Reduce GHG emissions at least 2 percent per
year starting in 2009 to achieve a reduction of
20% below 2005 levels by 2020;
Ultimately to achieve carbon neutrality for the
municipal organization.
Energy
2009 Energy Policy
Support the community’s carbon emissions goal
(see above) through efficiency, conservation and
renewable energy
Annually achieve efficiency program savings
equivalent to 1.5% of the community’s electric use
Meet the State Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
- 3% of total energy sold by 2011
- 6% of total energy sold by 2015
- 10% of total energy sold by 2020
Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas)
Reduce city energy consumption by 20%
below 2005 by 2020
Reduce demand peak use by 15% by
2020.
Waste / Recycling
2011 City Plan
Divert 50% of community’s waste stream from
landfill
Reduce solid waste generated by 50% of
overall waste stream by 2012 and 80% by
2020.
Transportation
1997 FC Multimodal LOS Manual
LOS (Level of Service) standards set for each
transportation mode
Municipal Fuel
Reduce traditional fuel (gasoline and
diesel) use by the City’s vehicle fleet by
20% by 2020
Reach a 1.5 average vehicle ridership
(AVR) by 2020.
Water
2009 Water Conservation Plan
140 gallons/person/ day by 2020 (normalized to
account to weather conditions)
Reduce building water use (normalized to
account for weather conditions, by 20%
by 2020.
Reduce municipal operations water
irrigation use and increase efficiency per
acre.
ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CONTRACT WITH A PHOTOVOLTAIC PROVIDER AT THE
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY FOR A TERM OF UP TO 20 YEARS
WHEREAS, the City’s Water Treatment Facility is located in Larimer County, and it
receives electrical power service from Xcel Energy; and
WHEREAS, the availability of solar power rebates from Xcel Energy provides an incentive
for a photovoltaic (“PV”) supplier to design, construct, operate and maintain a photovoltaic system
at the Water Treatment Facility at relatively low cost to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has issued a Request for Proposals for a PV supplier, and
is in the process of negotiating and completing the arrangements for the desired system, which
would be installed on vacant property owned by Utilities as part of the Water Treatment Plant
property; and
WHEREAS, given the investment required to design and construct the PV system, staff has
proposed that the City enter into a contract with the PV supplier to sell power to the Water
Treatment Facility for a period of up to 20 years; and
WHEREAS, the proposed arrangement would allow the City to implement an on-site
renewable energy project at the Water Treatment Plant with no up-front capital costs; and
WHEREAS, under the proposed arrangement, the City would purchase the power generated
by the system at a fixed rate that is lower than the current Xcel Energy rate; and
WHEREAS, this would result in a predictable and reduced cost of electricity over the 20-
year contract; and
WHEREAS, the proposed arrangement would also provide that the City would be entitled
to purchase the solar project from the PV supplier after the fifth year of the agreement, at a
calculated fair market value; and
WHEREAS, this project would assist the City in meeting its internal sustainability goal of
reducing electrical usage by 20 percent by the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8-186 of the City Code the Purchasing Agent must obtain
approval of the City Council by ordinance in order to enter into any contract with a term longer than
five years in length.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a 20-year power purchase
agreement with the chosen PV supplier consistent with the terms of this Ordinance, together with
such additional terms and conditions as the Purchasing Agent, in consultation with the City Manager
and City Attorney, determines to be a necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or
advance the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of
July, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
Page 1 of 1
City Property Description
Parcel Number:
97070-00-913
Legal Description (Per County Assessor’s Records):
PAR IN NE 7-7-69, AND NW 8-7-69, COM AT E 1/4 COR SEC 7, N 0 42' E
ALG E LN NE 702.80 FT TPOB; N 85 55' 45" W ALG NRLY ROW
LAPORTE AVE 1288.85 FT, N 0 42' 30" E ALG WRLY ROW OF A PAR
DESC AT RECP NO. 852366 460.99 FT; N 89 16' 32" E ALG SRLY LN OF
PAR DESC AT RECP NO. 573867 1286.95 FT; S 0 42' W ALG ERLY ROW
LN OF PAR DESC AT RECP NO. 852366 320.92 FT; TH ALG SRLY LN OF
PAR DESC AT RECP NO. 355173 S 85 56' E 619.33 FT; TH S 29 27' 15" E
298.66 FT; TH ALG NRLY ROW LN OF LAPORTE AVE N 85 49' W 767.90
FT; N 85 55' 45" W 1.80 FT TPOB
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial
Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human
Services Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the
Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the
Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). Ordinance No. 097, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 19, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: July 19, 2011
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial
Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing the Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human
Services Program.
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-063 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from
the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, the Home Investment Partnerships Program, and
the City’s Human Services Program.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-064 Approving the Fiscal Year 2011 Administration and Project Budgets
for the Home Investment Partnerships Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer
of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer
of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
E. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-065 Eliminating Restrictions on the Use of Affordable Housing Funds
Currently Earmarked for the Acquisition of Former Rental Properties.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resolution 2011-063 will complete the 2011 spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial
resources to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities by listing the specific
programs/projects that will receive funding starting October 1, 2011. Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s
FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Resolution 2011-
064 establishes the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2011 program year, which also
starts on October 1, 2011. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November as a result
of the 2011 fall cycle of the competitive process. Ordinance No. 097, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 HOME
Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Resolution 2011-065 eliminates the restriction on $60,000 of Affordable
Housing Fund dollars that they be used for the acquisition of former rental properties by first-time home buyers to
allowing the funds to be used for the purchases of non-rental properties.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2011-063 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG funds for the FY 2011
program year (including funds from the Entitlement Grant and Program Income), which starts on October 1, 2011;
which programs and projects will receive funding from carry-over funds from the HOME Program; and which programs
will receive funding from the City’s 2011 Human Services Program. The CDBG Commission presents to the City
Council a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding. The following table
summarizes the total amount and sources of all available CDBG, HOME, and City funds for distribution during the
spring cycle of the competitive process:
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -2- ITEM 25
AMOUNT SOURCE
$923,469 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
61,815 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
8,883 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$2,065,454 Total Funding Available
Unprogrammed funds are funds from previous years that have yet to be allocated to specific programs or projects.
Program Income includes repayments from rehabilitation loans and home buyer assistance loans along with
repayments from development loans. Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) funds are HOME funds
that need to be reserved for allocation to agencies which qualify as CHDOs including the Fort Collins Housing
Corporation, CARE Housing, and Neighbor-to-Neighbor, Inc..
The FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income totals $994,167. HUD regulations limit a maximum
of 20% of these funds, or $198,832, for planning and program administrative purposes. The following table
summarizes the amount and sources of available funds for planning projects and CDBG Program administrative costs:
Funding for Planning and CDBG Program Administration
AMOUNT SOURCE
$184,693 20% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
12,363 20% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,776 20% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
$198,832 Total Funding Available for Planning and CDBG Program Administration
HUD regulations limit a maximum of 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG funds and CDBG Program Income, or $149,124 for
use in the Public Services category. The City’s 2011 Human Services Program adds $389,601 and Human Services
Program KFCG funds adds an additional $150,733, for use in the category, for a total of $689,458 of available funding.
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds for public/human service proposals:
Funding for Public/Human Services
AMOUNT SOURCE
$138,520 15% of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
9,272 15% of FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
1,332 15% of Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
389,601 2011 City Human Services Program
150,733 2011 City Human Services KFCG Funds
$689,458 Total Funding Available for Public/Human Services Proposals
Considering the set-asides for Planning and Administration and Public/Human Services presented above, the balance
of the FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income amounts, or $646,211, plus $191,338 of
unprogrammed FY 2010 CDBG funds, $211,906 of unprogrammed FY 2010 HOME funds, $102,381 of unprogrammed
FY 2010 HOME CHDO funds, and $25,328 of unprogrammed FY 2004 HOME CHDO funds, provide an amount of
$1,177,164 available for allocation to affordable housing proposals. The following table summarizes the amount and
sources of available funds for affordable housing proposals:
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -3- ITEM 25
Funding for Affordable Housing
AMOUNT SOURCE
$600,256 FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant
40,180 FY 2011 CDBG Program Income
5,775 Prior Year’s CDBG Program Income
191,338 FY 2010 Unprogrammed CDBG Funds
211,906 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME Funds
102,381 FY 2010 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
25,328 FY 2004 Unprogrammed HOME CHDO Funds
$1,177,164 Total Funding Available for Affordable Housing Proposals
The City received 31 applications for funding and a staff administration request as part of the 2011 spring cycle of the
competitive process requesting a total of $2,678,987. The total amount of funds available from all sources is
$2,065,454. The total of application requests is, thus, $613,533 more than the amount of available funding. Also, HUD
regulation limitations within the Public Services category results in a total of $260,697 more in requests than available
funds for the category. Unfortunately, funds in the Planning and Administration and Affordable Housing categories
can not be used to fund any Public Service applications. The following table summarizes the amount of funding
requests compared to the amount of funding available for each of the major funding categories.
Category
Number of
Applications
Requested
Funding
Available
Funding
Request-Available
Difference
Affordable Housing 3 $1,530,000 $1,177,164 -$352,836
Public Services 28 $950,155 $689,458 -260,697
Administration - $198,832 $198,832 0
Totals 31 $2,678,987 $2,065,454 $-613,533
Removing Restrictions on the Use of Affordable Housing Funds in the Home Buyer Assistance Program
The City’s Home Buyers Assistance (HBA) Program uses funding from the HOME and CDBG federal grants and the
City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). In the past, normal assistance has been split with 50% coming from the HOME
Program and 50% coming from the CDBG Program (federal regulations limit the use of CDBG funds to be no more
than 50% of the total assistance). The City’s AHF dollars have been earmarked for assistance to families wishing to
purchase former rental housing units (for the use of federal funds, federal regulations require rental units to be vacant
for three months in order to avoid displacement concerns and relocation payments).
With the change in federal HOME regulations, it is now basically impossible to continue using HOME funds as the 50%
match to CDBG funds in providing down payment and closing cost assistance in the HBA Program. Staff is suggesting
that the City change its policy regarding the use of the AHF in the HBA program, eliminating the condition that they
be used only for the acquisition of former rental units and allowing the funds to be used for any home purchase. Staff’s
request is to remove the “former rental unit only” restriction for $60,000 of AHF dollars already approved through the
competitive process for the HBA. This $60,000 could then be used to match $60,000 of CDBG funds already allocated
to the HBA Program. This would still leave $84,000 of AHF to assist first-time home buyers wishing to purchase former
rental units.
Without the ability to use AHF as a match, assistance in the HBA would be limited to CDBG funds, or only half the
amount of assistance families would need to acquire a new home. Stated another way, without a 50% match to CDBG
funds, families would need to have between $4,000 and $5,000 of their own money to buy a home – not many low-
income families have that amount of funds available.
The CDBG Commission discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on February 10, 2011, and voted unanimously
to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment 8).
The Affordable Housing Board discussed this issue at its monthly meeting on March 3, 2011, and voted unanimously
to recommend the requested change in the use of AHF dollars (see Attachment 9).
Resolution 2011-065 would eliminate the restrictions on the use of $60,000 of Affordable Housing Funds currently
earmarked for the acquisition of former rental properties and permit the funds to be used for the acquisition of any
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -4- ITEM 25
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program
provide federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which
can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand
on the City’s General Fund Budget to address such needs. The total amount of CDBG funds available for allocation
during FY 2011 is $1,185,505, while the total amount of HOME funds for FY 2011 is $644,352. Together, the CDBG
and HOME programs provide $1,829,857 of federal funds to the City. The City’s General Fund does contribute
$389,601 in the Human Services Program and $150,733 of KFCG funds for allocation during the spring cycle, and
$325,024 of Affordable Housing Fund dollars for the fall cycle of the competitive process.
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the community. This
means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit to economic sustainability.
Public/human service programs contribute to economic sustainability by providing such programs as job training and
child care, so workers can maintain their employment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable housing options for lower
income people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the community instead of being forced to live outside the
community and commute into the city for work. This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green building practices.
Green building practices are being used in both new construction and major rehabilitation of existing housing unit
projects. These practices include geo-thermal applications and other energy saving techniques.
All affordable housing projects utilizing CDBG and HOME funds are required to pass a HUD environmental review
which covers such items as noise impacts, floodplains, hazardous materials, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission Recommendations
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding from
the available funding sources presented above, including CDBG funds and the Human Services Program (HSP). The
following tables present the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council within each major
category:
Planning and Administration
Applicant
Project/Program
Request and
Recommendation
Source(s) of
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent of
Request Funded
AD-1 City of Fort
Collins CDBG
Administration
Request
$198,832
Recommendation
$198,832
$198,832
FY 2011 CDBG
Entitlement Grant
CDBG Program
Income
$0 100%
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -5- ITEM 25
Affordable Housing
Applicant
Project/Program
Request and
Recommendation
Source(s) of
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent of
Request Funded
HO-1 Fort Collins
Housing Authority –
Land Acquisition
Request
$350,000
Recommendation
$0
$0 $350,000 0%
HO-2 Fort Collins
Housing
Corporation &
Cornerstone –
Legacy Senior
Residences
Request
$430,000
Recommendation
$427,164
$87,549
FY 2010 CDBG
$211,906
FY 2010 HOME
$102,381
FY 2010 CHDO
$25,328
FY 2004 CHDO
$2,836 99%
HO-3 Merten –
Union Place
Request
$750,000
Recommendation
$750,000
$600,256
FY 2011 CDBG
$40,180
FY 11 CDBG PI
$5,775
CDBG PI
$103,789
FY 2010 CDBG
$0 100%
All funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing category are in the form of a “Due on Sale
Loan + 5% Simple Interest.”
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -6- ITEM 25
Applicant
Project/Program
Request and
Recommendation
Source(s) of
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent of
Request Funded
PS-7 Center for Family
Outreach – Diversion
Program for
Youth/Parents
Request
$17,500
Recommendation
$0
$0 $17,500 0%
PS-8 Childsafe Research
& Treatment Foundation –
Child Abuse Program
Request
$30,000
Recommendation
$0
$0 $30,000 0%
PS-9 Crossroads
Safehouse: Advocacy
Program
Request
$99,216
Recommendation
$42,202
$16,469
(HSP grant)
$25,733
(HSP KFCG grant)
$57,014 43%
PS-10 Disabled Resource
Services: Access to
Independence Program
Request
$28,442
Recommendation
$28,442
$28,442
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-11 Education and Life
Training Center:
Employment Skills
Training
Request
$22,009
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -7- ITEM 25
Applicant
Project/Program
Request and
Recommendation
Source(s) of
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent of
Request Funded
PS-21 Northern Colorado
AIDS Project - Client
Services
Request
$29,500
$24,500
(HSP grant)
$5,000 83%
PS-22 Project Self-
Sufficiency: Services for
Single-Parent Families
$33,000
Recommendation
$22,000
$22,000
(HSP KFCG grant)
$11,000 67%
PS-23 Rehabilitation and
Visiting Nurse
Association: Home Health
Care Scholarships
Request
$35,000
Recommendation
$35,000
$9,049
(CDBG grant)
$25,951
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-24 Respite Care:
Sliding Scale Fee Tuition
Assistance
Request
$30,000
Recommendation
$30,000
$30,00
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-25 Suicide Resource
Center – R.A.P.P & Hope
for Today Programs
Request
$3,000
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
July 19, 2011 -8- ITEM 25
Amount Source
$599,259 FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdictions Grant
45,093 FY 2011 HOME Program Income
$644,352 Total
HUD regulations allow a maximum of 10% of the HOME grant, or $59,925, and certain portions of eligible Program
Income, or $5,992, for a total of $65,917, for program administrative purposes. HUD regulations also require a 15%
set-aside of the HOME Grant, or $89,888, for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). The
following table summarizes the distribution of HOME funding.
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$65,917 10.2% HOME Program Administration
89,888 14.0% Community Housing Development Organizations
488,547 75.8% Other Affordable Housing Projects
$644,352 100.0% Total
PUBLIC OUTREACH
HUD regulations require a 30-day public comment period on the proposed allocation of CDBG and HOME funds as
recommended by the CDBG Commission. Staff placed an ad in the Coloradoan newspaper presenting the list of
recommended funding for programs/projects and indicated the public comment period would start on May 13, 2011,
and end on June 13, 2011. No public comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Background and Summary of the CDBG Commission’s Recommendations for Funding
2. Background Information on the Competitive Process
3. Affordable Housing Board’s Comments
4. Background Information on the CDBG and HOME Federal Programs
5. CDBG Commission’s Funding Recommendations, Meeting Minutes May 12, 2011
6. Focus Questions for CDBG Commission Decision Making
7. Formulation of Funding Recommendations Session
8. CDBG Commission minutes, February 10, 2011
9. Affordable Housing Board minutes, March 3, 2011
10. PowerPoint Presentation
ORDINANCE NO. 096, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN
PROGRAM YEARS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
WHEREAS, the City will receive in federal fiscal year 2011-2012 unanticipated revenue in
the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funds totaling $923,469; and
WHEREAS, the City will also receive unanticipated CDBG Program income in the 2011-
2012 federal fiscal year in the amount of $61,815 and has received unanticipated CDBG Program
income in the 2010-2011 federal fiscal year in the amount of $8,883; and
WHEREAS, unexpended funds are also available from the CDBG Program from prior fiscal
years in the amount of $191,338; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2011-063 the City Council approved the 2011
Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution 2011-064 the City Council authorized the City
Manager to transmit for approval the 2011 Fort Collins Consolidated Annual Action Plan to HUD
as required to receive the grant funds; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital
project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the funds were
initially appropriated no longer exists; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11, of the City Charter provides that federal grant
appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the budget year until the expiration of the
federal grant; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of all unanticipated CDBG
grant and program revenue as described herein will not result in total appropriations in excess of the
current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue
in the federal fiscal year 2011-2012 into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum
of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE
DOLLARS ($923,469), upon receipt thereof for federal fiscal year 2011-2012 Community
Development Block Grant Funds.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated program
income revenue, upon receipt thereof into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum
of SEVENTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($70,698), for approved
Community Development Block Grant projects.
Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of ONE HUNDRED
NINETY-ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($191,338) is
hereby authorized for transfer from the 2010-2011 Community Development Block Grant Program
to the 2011-2012 Community Development Block Grant Program and appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
July, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 097, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER
OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN PROGRAM YEARS IN THE HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS FUND
WHEREAS, the Home Investment Partnership Program (the “HOME Program”) was
authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to provide funds in the form of
Participating Jurisdiction Grants for a variety of housing-related activities which would increase the
supply of decent, safe, and affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution 1994-092 authorizing
the Mayor to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) a notification
of intent to participate in the HOME Program; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1994, HUD designated the City as a Participating Jurisdiction in
the HOME Program, allowing the City to receive an allocation of HOME Program funds as long as
Congress re-authorizes and continues to fund the program; and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified by HUD that the City’s HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant for the federal fiscal year 2011-2012 is $599,259; and
WHEREAS, the City will also receive unanticipated HOME Program income in the 2011-
2012 federal fiscal year in the amount of $45,093; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, do not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by
ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital
project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the funds were
initially appropriated no longer exists; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the HOME Program funds
as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the HOME Program Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the
2011 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11, of the City Charter provides that federal grant
appropriations shall not lapse if unexpended at the end of the fiscal year until the expiration of the
federal grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue
in the federal fiscal year 2011-2012 in the HOME Program Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED
NINETY-NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS ($599,259), upon
receipt from federal fiscal year 2011-2012 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated program
income revenue, upon receipt thereof, in the HOME Program Fund the sum of FORTY-FIVE
THOUSAND NINETY-THREE DOLLARS ($45,093), for approved HOME Program projects.
Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of THREE HUNDRED
FOURTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($314,287) is hereby
authorized for transfer from the 2010-2011 HOME Program projects to the 2011-2012 HOME
Program and appropriated therein.
Section 4. That the unexpended and unencumbered amount of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($25,328) is hereby authorized
for transfer from the 2004-2005 HOME Program projects to the 2011-2012 HOME Program and
appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th
day of July, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Ellen Martin
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the Linden Street
Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $17,998 for administration, design, materials, installation and contingency for a project
with Fort Collins artist Susan Dailey, to create up to twelve granite pavers to be integrated into the streetscape of the
Linden Street Streetscape Project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Section 23-303 of the City Code, which was added in 1995, established the Art in Public Places Reserve Account, and
designated it for use in acquiring or leasing works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and
administrative expenses related to the Art in Public Places (APP) Program, in accordance with the Art in Public Places
Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 020, 1995. The Council permanently adopted the Art in Public
Places Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article IX, with certain modifications in 1998.
The Linden Street Streetscaping Project, from Jefferson Street to the Poudre River, is the first project to be
implemented from the 2008 Downtown River District Plan, which has the goal of creating a new sense of place by
making the area welcoming, visually pleasing and ready for infill development. The artist worked with the team to
integrate the artwork into the streetscape and complement the overall project design.
The Art in Public Places Board selected an artist for this project from the APP Design Consultant Resource List. Fort
Collins artist Susan Dailey was selected to work with the project team. The artist worked with the project team to
develop design concepts integrated into the site and meet the goals of the project. This design concept was reviewed
and recommended by the project team and the APP Board. The APP Board reviewed the design for this project at the
April 20, 2011 board meeting.
To acknowledge and honor the role in Fort Collins history that the Linden and Willow Street area has played, artist
Susan Dailey focused her efforts on integrating historical aspects into her concepts for the public art in the project.
Working with local historians, the artist has composed up to twelve designs that can be sandblasted into 24-inch X 24-
inch granite pavers. These pavers will be set into the Linden Street sidewalks between Jefferson and Willow Streets.
Pedestrians will be able to learn about the rich cultural history of Fort Collins while walking down the street. There is
an historical progression from historic times to the early 1900s in the content of the imagery. Some of the pavers’
themes include: early residents, historic tribes, first flour mill, streetcars, the agricultural college and the Fort.
Additional interpretive signs will be placed by the project to further enhance the experience.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The item would transfer existing appropriations in the amount of $17,998, combined with the previous transfer of
$2,500 totals $20,498, or the 1% project contribution for APP. The $17,998 will be transferred from the Linden Street
Streetscape project to the Art in Public Places Account in the Cultural Services Fund. The Art in Public Places
program has a maintenance fund for the long-term care of the APP art collection.
The Linden Street Streetscape Project art budget is $20,498 to be used for design, materials, installation, and
contingency for this project.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The APP artist has been collaborating with the project team on this project. The artwork is integrated in the overall
design of the project. The granite pavers will be installed into the sidewalks of Linden Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
These design concepts were reviewed and recommended by the Art in Public Places Board at the April 20, 2011 Board
meeting.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Linden Street Streetscape Project design has been shared with the project’s adjacent property owners, Downtown
Development Authority, University Connections, and the Transportation Board. Updates and images have been
shared with the public via the project website and downtown projects newsletters.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Written description and drawing of the proposed works of art. The final work may vary from this description.
2. Art in Public Places Board minutes, April 20, 2011
APP Linden Street Streetscape Project
Artist: Susan Dailey
Dailey has composed up to12 designs to sandblast into 24” x 24” granite pavers. These pavers will be set into the
sidewalks on Linden Street, between Jefferson and Willow Streets. Pedestrians will be able to learn about the rich
cultural history of Fort Collins while walking down the street. There is a historical progression from prehistoric
times to the early 1900’s in the content of the imagery. Additional interpretive signs will be placed to further
enhance the experience.
The final designs will ultimately be interpreted as line drawings that will be adapted to meet the specific require-
ments of the stone cutting process. This will involve further steps in the refinement of the imagery to the essential
linear elements. In this process, some minor adjustments in composition may be required. The unifying element in
all of the paver compositions, is the framing format with a consistent lettering style used throughout the street-
scape.
To acknowledge and honor the role in Fort Collins history that the Linden and Willow Street area has played,
artist Susan Dailey has focused her efforts on integrating historical aspects into her concepts for the public art in
this project. All artwork imagery and content for the pavers were researched and cross-checked by local historians
for accuracy and appropriateness. Where possible, historic photos were utilized as starting points for the artwork,
sometimes several photo resources were combined to create a stronger visual statement within the context of the
subject matter. In cases where there were no photographic images available, a more interpretative/symbolic
approach was used. The majority of the photo resources and information came from the Fort Collins Museum
historical archives. Books, local historians, archeologists and other local sources of expertise were also consulted
for historical research.
Located in Jefferson Park. The Tedmons came from New York
and wanted to bring culture to Fort Collins. This was the first
fancy hotel and three story brick building in the area.
View of Horsetooth Rock taken from an historic photograph.
Attachment 1
The Arapahoe were peaceful in this area, primarily due to
Chief Friday who was schooled in St. Louis. The 11th Cavalry
was brought in to keep the peace, but in this area, Natives were
peaceful. This is a symbolic representation. The horse was
transportation for both cultures. They met at the Poudre River.
This was a camping place for the Natives, the buffalo were
disappearing as the wagon trains moved west.
A tribute to the trappers and the early residents. Life in the
early days of Fort Collins.
Arapahoe was the main tribe in the area. The Cottonwood
represents the Tree of Life. Arapahoe symbols are in the
border.
This is the only historic photograph.
An interpretation from an 1890’s map showing the town as it
might have looked.
Represents a wide range of time. Mammoths and giant bison
were common in this area in prehistory.
Union Pacific Railroad—the 1st passenger train in Fort
Collins.
Brought into Fort Collins as a local extension of the Railroad
line initially. They ran in neighborhoods including Linden
St. The line ran out to Lindenmeier Lake.
A land grant university. Iconic building, Old Main, was burned
down in the 1960’s.
A mounted cavalry soldier. An icon of the cavalry.
ORDINANCE NO. 099, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS
FROM THE LINDEN STREET STREETSCAPE PROJECT
TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Linden Street Streetscape project (the “Project”) is adding curb, gutter,
attractive and functional sidewalks, on-street parking, bike lanes, urban design, historic
interpretive features and landscaping to Linden Street between Jefferson Street and the Poudre
River; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established the Art in Public Places (APP) program in
1995 to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the
community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art; and
WHEREAS, the APP program is funded by setting aside one percent of all eligible city
construction projects over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the APP requirement for the Linden Street Streetscape project is $20,498
and $2,500 has previously been transferred to the APP program leaving a remaining balance of
$17,998 to be transferred; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Project to be transferred to the Cultural Services
Fund for the APP program; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion
thereof from one fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds
are to be expended remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount of SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($17,998) is hereby authorized
for transfer from the Capital Projects Fund - Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural
Services Fund for the Art in Public Places program and appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Jill Stilwell
Bev Gast
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Cultural Services Fund and
in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lincoln Center Renovation project is funded primarily through the Building on Basics capital tax approved by
voters in 2005. Unanticipated grant and donation revenue will be used to complete the full scope of the estimated $8.2
million project. Approximately $5.5 million has been appropriated from the Building on Basics tax and $2.6 million from
unanticipated grant revenue and prior year reserves in the Cultural Services and General Funds.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The 32 year-old Lincoln Center’s greatest challenge is its aging and outdated spaces. The facility is well-loved and
well-used by the community, as evidenced by being fully booked year-round. However, the infrastructure of the
building was never designed to accommodate the sheer volume of visitors the building hosts each year. A significant
renovation of Lincoln Center was needed, to add 17,000 square feet and renovate 55,000 square feet with a focus on
improving the patron experience, performer amenities, and infusing new life into a community treasure.
In 2005 voters approved the Building on Basics (BOB) capital tax renewal which dedicated $5.487 million towards
renovating the Lincoln Center. Ordinance No. 063, 2010 appropriated $1.4 million; Ordinance No. 006, 2011
appropriated $460,000; Ordinance No. 41, 2011 appropriated $605,000; and Ordinance No. 62, 2011 appropriated
$135,000. The total project cost is estimated at $8.2 million.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance will appropriate additional funding for the Lincoln Center Renovation as follows:
The Lincoln Center Support League is a 501c3 non-profit fundraising arm of the Lincoln Center. They have collected
the following grants and donations for the renovation project and are now transferring those funds to the project:
Griffin Family Foundation: $50,000
Anonymous Donation: $50,000
Boettcher Family Foundation: $50,000
Donations from various individuals: $11,088
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado Agency Fund: $14,620
The total cost of the project is estimated at $8.2 million. Approximately $5.5 million has been appropriated from the
BOB tax, $2.6 million from grants, donations, and prior year reserves. This Ordinance appropriates an additional
$175,708. There are additional unfunded elements above the $8.2 million to complete the full scope of the project.
These items will be added as additional funds become available. Building on Basics also included $24,000 of revenue
for seven years to off-set additional operating costs for the renovated facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Lincoln Center renovation and this additional structural work will meet LEED Gold standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 100, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CULTURAL
SERVICES FUND AND IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE
BUILDING ON BASICS LINCOLN CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed Ordinance No. 092, 2005
approving the “Building on Basics” (“BOB”) tax for certain capital projects including the Lincoln
Center Renovation Project (the “Project”), which is currently under construction; and
WHEREAS, the Project will add 17,000 square feet and renovate 55,000 square feet with
a focus on improving the patron experience, performer amenities, and infusing new life into the
facility; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project, including the structural reinforcement of the
performance hall walls, is estimated to be $8.2 million, to be paid for with $5.5 million of BOB
funding, $2.6 million previously appropriated from grants, donations, and prior year reserves, and
an additional $175,708 to be appropriated with this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, additional unanticipated revenue in the amount of $161,088 has been received
by the Lincoln Center Support League, which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation formed by
private parties to raise and donate funds to the Lincoln Center to support its activities; and
WHEREAS, this revenue came from the following sources: (1) $50,000 from the Boettcher
Family Foundation; (2) $50,000 from the Griffin Family Foundation; (3) $50,000 from an
anonymous donation; and (4) $11,088 in donations from various other individuals; and
WHEREAS, additional revenue in the amount of $14,620 has been received from the
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado Agency Fund for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in
the Cultural Services Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND EIGHTY-
EIGHT DOLLARS ($161,088) for the Lincoln Center Renovation expenses.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund the sum of FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY
DOLLARS ($14,620) for the Lincoln Center Renovation Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Cheryl Donaldson, Ken
Mannon, Ron Kechter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services Fund for
Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the
Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, has provided funds, currently held in the Capital Projects
Fund, in the amount of $738,034 in support of the Exhibits for the new Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science
Center Joint Facility project. Also, $100,000 from the Fort Collins Museum Donation Reserves are being provided to
support the Exhibits. Additionally, an estate gift in the amount of $150 has been provided.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins Museum and the Discovery Science Center formed a partnership that was consummated in an
agreement dated March 11, 2008. In this agreement, the Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a
Discovery Science Center (the “NPC”) committed to providing $1,100,000 towards the Exhibits for the Fort Collins
Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility.
An extensive fundraising effort by the NPC has enabled it to raise $3,617,000 in the form of cash and pledges. The
amounts to be appropriated at this time are allocated according to the following distribution:
Exhibit Design $481,875
Digital Dome Infrastructure $185,000
PV Array Roof Support $ 41,159
Exhibit Lighting Controls $ 30,000
Total $738,034
The total of all these monies ($738,034) will be used to fund the design of the exhibits, the infrastructure for the digital
dome and roof support for the photvoltiac (PV) array for the new facility. Also, funds in the amount of $100,000 are
being allocated from the Fort Collins Museum Donation Reserves. These funds have been held in reserve with the
intent to fund exhibits in the new facility. Additionally, funds in the amount of $150 were received as an estate gift for
construction of the new facility.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The funds in the amount of $738,034 were received from the NPC for the exhibits, digital dome and PV array for the
new Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility. Also, funds in the amount of $100,000 are
being allocated from the Fort Collins Museum Donation Reserves. Additionally a $150 gift from an estate was
provided. This Ordinance will appropriate the $838,184 in the Building on Basics (BOB) New Museum Facility Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 101, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE CULTURAL SERVICES FUND
FOR TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND APPROPRIATING
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR
THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM/DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER PROJECT
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed Ordinance No. 092, 2005,
approving the “Building on Basics” (“BOB”) tax for certain capital projects; and
WHEREAS, $6,000,000 was included in the BOB capital project program for construction
of a new combined-use facility for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center (“the
Project”); and
WHEREAS, in March 2008, the City and the Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit
corporation, d/b/a Discovery Science Center (the “NPC”), now officially known as FCDM, Inc.,
entered into an operating agreement for the construction and operation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project will be jointly owned, managed, and funded by the City and the
NPC and will expand the educational experience of city residents by providing a broader array of
scientific, cultural and historical exhibits in a single location, and will also provide an exciting new
City amenity; and
WHEREAS, the NPC has raised $3,617,000 in cash and pledges for museum exhibits and
the amount presently available for appropriation is $738,034, which funds are currently being held
in the Capital Projects Fund; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $100,000 are also available from the Fort Collins
Museum operations reserve in the Cultural Services Fund for the Project museum exhibits; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $150 have been received as a gift from an estate for
construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, this Ordinance appropriates a total amount of $838,184 for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated.
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended
remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Cultural Services Fund the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000)
to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriated therein for the Building on Basics -
Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Project.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital
Projects Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($738,184) for expenditure on the Building on Basics - Fort Collins
Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Marlys Sittner
Kurt Ravenschlag
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the South Transit Center Park and Ride Project.
A. Resolution 2011-068 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the Colorado Department of
Transportation for the Construction of the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund,
Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staff applied to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Senate Bill 1 funding for one project that
included the South Transit Center (STC) and an adjacent park and ride facility. In 2009, CDOT approved funding for
the STC, but did not fund the park and ride. A 2010 CDOT grant subsequently approved the necessary funding to
build the adjacent park and ride facility. Previous Council action approved the contract for construction of the STC
facility; this Resolution executes the contract for the park and ride only.
The South Transit Center (STC) Park and Ride will serve as Transfort’s first Park and Ride facility. The STC Park and
Ride will serve a wide range of users with 170 public parking stalls providing access to the Mason Trail and Transfort
bus service. The STC Park and Ride will also serve the regional FLEX service and the Mason Bus Rapid Transit
system known as MAX. These state funds will be used as local match to the Federal Transit Administration funds for
the overall Mason Corridor Project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The STC Park and Ride Project will be located on City-owned property that is located west of South College Avenue
US-287, near the intersection of Fairway Lane and Fossil Boulevard, approximately 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road
(Attachment 1) and at the south terminus for the future MAX bus service. This site is currently used as the trailhead
parking area for the City's Mason Corridor bicycle/pedestrian trail and the Fossil Creek trail. The STC Park and Ride
will be a permanent transit facility that caters to a wide range of users, providing access to Transfort bus service and
the Mason Trail. In addition to the Park and Ride, the South Transit Center will contain a bus turnaround, pedestrian-
waiting shelters, customer service counter, retail space, site furnishings for passenger comfort and safety, security
lighting, identification signage, signage for transit rider information and landscape improvements.
The CDOT FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) funding contract
for the construction of the Park and Ride is also being leveraged as local match towards the federal funding of the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project. The State contribution approved for the South Transit Center Park and Ride
is $820,430.
Project Schedule:
CDOT Design Review: August 2010
Design/Construction Documents Phases: September 2010
Planning/Entitlement Phases: October 2010
Construction: Fall 2011
The construction phase for the South Transit Center Park and Ride will be coordinated with the Mason Corridor MAX
BRT system construction. The South Transit Center, Park and Ride and MAX BRT service are scheduled to be
operational by the end of 2013. The Park and Ride is designed to be implemented and operational either as a
component of the overall Mason Corridor/MAX Project, or as an independent stand-alone Transfort facility.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This funding contract between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Fort Collins is for
the construction of a Park and Ride, which is a component of the Mason Corridor/MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Project. CDOT's FASTER funding program is an 80/20 grant program with the State providing 80% of the total cost.
As the land value is included in the complete project cost, CDOT will contribute all monies for the Park and Ride
improvements and the City of Fort Collins will be credited with contributing the cost of the land. No additional City
funds are necessary to secure this state grant.
Capital
State of Colorado SB-1 (80%): $820,430
Local Match (20%): City of Fort Collins
(In-kind only based on land value) $205,108
Total Capital Project Cost: $1,025,538
The State Transportation Commission approved a total amount of $820,430 for the City's Park and Ride Project. The
approved FASTER funds are part of the City's local matching funds for the Federal Transit Administration federal
funding for the overall Mason Corridor BRT Project.
The South Transit Center Park and Ride will be operational in 2013, functioning as Transfort’s first Park and Ride
facility. North/south and east/west bus routes will feed into this facility, including MAX and FLEX, the regional bus
route to Longmont. The following operational and maintenance expenses for the Park and Ride will be submitted as
an offer in the 2013 and 2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process.
2013 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for the STC Park and Ride
Grounds Maintenance $ 14,000
Snow Removal $ 15,000
Utilities $ 7,500
Total O&M: $ 36,500
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The STC Park and Ride was included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment
for the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. On September 9, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration declared
a Finding of No Significant Impact would result from the construction and on-going operation of the South Transit
Center Park and Ride.
The Environmental Assessment analyzed impacts on the following categories:
Land Use and Zoning Wildlife/Ecological
Social Conditions Threatened and Endangered Species
Economic Conditions Visual Quality
Environmental Justice Cultural Resources
Right-of-way Hazardous Materials
Air Quality Parks and Recreation Resources
Noise and Vibration Farmland
Water Resources and Water Quality Public Safety and Security
Wetlands Construction
Flooding and Floodplain Management Transportation
Vegetation Cumulative Impacts
Noxious Weeds
August 16, 2011 -3- ITEM 15
For more detailed information concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation measures please refer to the
Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment located at www.fcgov.com/mason/environment.php .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On September 20, 2000, the Transportation Board unanimously voted to approve the Mason Street Corridor Master
Plan, which included plans for the South Transit Center and adjacent Park and Ride. Since 2000, staff has regularly
updated the Transportation Board regarding the progress of the Mason Corridor, most recently on May 18, 2011.
Minutes from the Transportation Board are provided as Attachments 4, 5, and 6.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach has been conducted since 1998 for the Mason Corridor project. The most recent public outreach event
was an Open House held June 2, 2010. Information and renderings of the South Transit Center and the Park and Ride
were included. A list of outreach conducted as part of the Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment, Preliminary
Design, and Final Design are provided below:
Public Involvement Summary for the Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment (2006-2010):
11/29/2006: Colorado State University Meeting with Dr. Penley, Colorado State University President, and his Cabinet
12/8/2006: 281 N. College Avenue - Meeting with Colorado State University Staff
12/18/2006: CSU Lory Student Center - Mason Presentation to large Colorado State University staff meeting
12/19/2006: 215 N. Mason Community Room - Mason Design Team Meeting
1/11/2007: 417 W Magnolia St. Lincoln Center - UniverCity Connections Community Forum
1/16/2007: 300 Laporte Ave. City Hall - Mason agenda item at City Council meeting
1/24/2007: 900 N. College Avenue - Presentation to North College Business Association
1/25/2007: 300 Laporte Ave. City Hall - Channel 14 Cable television show taping
1/30/2007: 215 N. Mason Community Room - Mason team meeting
2/1/2007: 303 E. Mountain Ave Home State Bank - Presentation to the Downtown Development Authority
2/2/2007: 215 N. Mason Community Room - Meeting with Colorado State University
2/7/2007: 300 Laporte Ave. City Hall - Channel 14 Cable television Mason Corridor Presentation taping
2/9/2007: 401 Mason Ct. Dazbog Coffee - Meeting with property owner- Dazbog Coffee Co.
2/13/2007: 300 Laporte Ave. City Hall - Mason presentation City Council work session
2/14/2007: 250 N. Mason Conference Room - Meeting with downtown property owners
August 16, 2011 -4- ITEM 15
2/16/2007: 225 S. Meldrum St. - Mason Presentation to Chamber of Commerce
2/22/2007: KRFC Radio Station - Mason Radio Show KRFC
2/27/2007: 4616 Shields St Harmony Library - Mason Community Presentation
2/27/2007: 215 N. Mason Community Room - Mason Design Team Meeting
3/7/2007: 500 Linden Street - Presentation to the UniverCity Sustainable Energy citizen group
3/8/2007: 215 N. Mason Community Room - Presentation to North College Urban Renewal Authority Board
3/8/2007: 1200 Raintree Dr. Ball Room - Mason Corridor Public Scoping Meeting
3/14/2007: 1200 Raintree Dr. Ball Room - Mason Corridor Public Open House
3/20/2007: 3103 S. College Ave. Dellenbach Motors - Meeting with local car dealerships along the Mason Corridor
3/21/2007: 1200 Raintree Dr. Ball Room - Mason Corridor Public Open House also emphasis on the Mason Trail and
Bicycling
3/26/2007: Colorado State University - Presentation to Colorado State University Employees
3/28/2007: 2145 S. Center Ave Gardens Spring Creek - Mason Corridor Public Open House
3/29/2007: 103 W. Mountain Ave. - Meeting with property owner Mary Hummel/ Bohemian Foundation Public
Involvement Summary Mason Corridor / MAX BRT Project
3/29/2007: City of Fort Collins Facilities Building - Meeting with property owner Rayno Cesar
3/30/2007: Mason Corridor Station Sites Meeting with various Mason Corridor Property owners
4/2/2007: Colorado State University Meeting with Colorado State University Design Review committee
4/10/2007: 2201 South College Ave. Whole Foods - Mason Meeting with Whole Foods and Wilbur’s
4/26/2007: 120 Bristlecone Drive - Mason Presentation with Poudre Valley Health District
4/30/2007: Mason Corridor Various Sites Meeting with various Mason Corridor Property owners
5/1/2007: 2201 South College Ave. Whole Foods - Mason Meeting with Whole Foods and Wilbur’s
5/4/2007: 250 N. Mason Conference Room - Meeting with downtown developers, including Mike Jensen
5/4/2007: Colorado State University Presentation to Associated Students of CSU President and Vice President
5/9/2007: Colorado State University Presentation to Colorado State University Parking Committee
5/17/2007: 281 N. College Avenue Presentation to Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
5/18/2007: 225 S. Meldrum St. Chamber Presentation to the Chamber of Commerce and the Local Legislative affairs
committee
5/19/2007: CSU Morgan Library Mason Presentation and Question and Answer Session- “Tables of Content” Event
5/22/2007: 305 W. Swallow Rd. Mason Neighborhood meeting to discuss Corridor and TOD
5/31/2007: 425 W. Prospect Rd. Mason Display Booth and Information UniverCity Connections Celebration Event
August 16, 2011 -5- ITEM 15
6/12/2007: Water Valley Windsor, CO Presentation to the Northern Colorado Contractors Association
6/13/2007: 417 West Magnolia Street Information booth at CDOT’s North I-25 EIS public meeting
7/11/2007: RE/MAX Offices Mason Presentation to RE/MAX realtors group
12/2/2009: Moose Lodge, 4820 South College Avenue – South Transit Center Neighborhood Meeting
6/2/2010: 215 North Mason Community Room - Mason Corridor Open House
ATTACHMENTS
1. Area map
2. Transportation Board minutes, September 20, 2000
3. Transportation Board minutes, July 21, 2010
4. Transportation Board minutes, May 18, 2011
Attachment 1: Area Map
Horsetooth Road
________________Harmony Road
W. Fairway Lane
Fossil Creek Drive
Future MAX Guideway
College Avenue
Project Site
RESOLUTION 2011-068
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE SOUTH TRANSIT CENTER PARK AND RIDE
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2010, the City Council authorized, by Resolution 2010-048, the
execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) for the design and construction of the South Transit Center which will be located in the
approximate vicinity of the intersection of Fairway Lane and Fossil Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the South Transit Center includes as a component, a Park and Ride and
passenger drop-off facility, which was not funded for construction pursuant to the intergovernmental
agreement authorized by Resolution 2010-048; and
WHEREAS, the City has applied to CDOT for additional funding for the South Transit
Center Park and Ride, which funding has been offered by CDOT from its “Funding Advancement
for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER)” funds in an amount sufficient to
construct the Park and Ride; and
WHEREAS, the South Transit Center Park and Ride will serve a wide range of users and will
include 170 public parking stalls providing access to the Mason Trail, Transfort bus service, regional
FLEX service and also the Mason Bus Rapid Transit System which is known as “MAX”; and
WHEREAS, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environment assessment for
the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project indicated a finding of no significant impact with
respect to the construction and ongoing operation of the South Transit Center Park and Ride; and
WHEREAS, the estimated total costs of construction of the South Transit Center Park and
Ride is $1,025,538; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a local agency City matching in-kind
contribution of land value in the amount of $205,108 should be utilized in conjunction with the grant
funds to complete the construction of the South Transit Center Park and Ride; and
WHEREAS, following public outreach and upon favorable recommendation of the
Transportation Board, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the Mayor enter into a contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the construction
of the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into a contract with CDOT in substantially
the form shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the
construction of the South Transit Center Park and Ride at a total cost of $1,025,538, of which
$820,430 will be paid from the CDOT FASTER funds and $205,108 will be paid by local City
matching funds through the in-kind contribution of land value.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th
day of August, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 102, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, MASON CORRIDOR PROJECT FOR THE
SOUTH TRANSIT CENTER PARK AND RIDE
WHEREAS, the South Transit Center (the “STC”) Park and Ride is a component of the
Mason Corridor Project; and
WHEREAS, the STC Park and Ride will be located on City-owned property located near the
intersection of Fairway Lane and Fossil Boulevard approximately one-half mile south of Harmony
Road and at the south terminus for the future MAX bus service; and
WHEREAS, the STC Park and Ride will be Transfort’s first park and ride facility and with
170 public parking stalls it will provide access to the Mason Trail and Transfort bus service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution 2011-XXX authorizing the City to
enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(“CDOT”) for the construction of the South Transit Center Park and Ride; and
WHEREAS, CDOT’s FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery) funding will provide 80% of the project costs in the amount of $820,430, and
the 20% local match in the amount of $205,108 will be provided in the form of the City-owned land;
and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue from the Colorado
Department of Transportation grant funds in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of EIGHT
HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS ($820,430) for
expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project - South Transit Center Park and
Ride.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Matt Wempe
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services
Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Division has received a $99,800 federal grant through the Colorado
Department of Transportation for the FY 2011-12 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the
City of Fort Collins’ Safe Routes to School Program (administered and staffed by the Transportation Planning Division)
to provide pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning staff develops and administers the local SRTS program. The success
of the program is based on collaborations with local partners including PSD, BPEC and its local members, Bicycle
Colorado, various City departments (Traffic Operations, Police, Engineering), individual schools and parents, and FC
Bikes. Both the 2008 Bike Plan and 2011 Bicycle Safety Education Plan (BSEP) call for the City and community
partners to provide bicycle education for children. The BSEP specifically recommends that at least 11,000 K-12
students are engaged in safety education annually, and that at least one “train the trainer” graduate is in each school
in Fort Collins.
Per the grant scope of work, the Fort Collins SRTS program will work with fourteen local schools during the 2011-12
school year. City staff and community partners are working to confirm schools, based on selection criteria such as
location, safety issues, student demographics, and school wellness initiatives. SRTS activities include in-class
education, “train the trainers” program and training material development, and walking and bicycling safety and
encouragement events. The Fort Collins SRTS program involves a variety of partners, including but not limited to,
Poudre School District (PSD), Bike Co-op, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition (BPEC) and Bicycle
Colorado. Additionally, the funds will cover the costs of free bicycle helmets for low-income students, federally-
mandated data collection on walking and bicycling at local schools, and staff costs for contract administration. The
funding will allow the Fort Collins SRTS program to build on past walking and cycling successes and provide these
services to fourteen additional schools and approximately 10,000 students. The grant funding will be available starting
August 2011 and will fund the following activities:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Classes ($73,300): Bicycle Colorado and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Education Coalition (including the Bike Co-op) will conduct walking and bicycling safety education classes at
fourteen PSD elementary and middle schools. Children will participate in a combination of classroom learning
(pedestrian and vehicle awareness, proper helmet fit, street sign identification, rules of the road/trail) and
practical "bike rodeo" and pedestrian activities (being a visible pedestrian, straight line riding, starting/stopping,
proper signaling and turning) at each school. Safe Kids Larimer County will incorporate pedestrian and bicycle
education into their existing programs aimed at third grade students.
• “Train the Trainers” Program and Education Training Materials ($14,500): The previous school year SRTS
grant included funding to train 50 individuals (teachers, parents, volunteers) how to teach safe bicycling and
walking throughout local schools. The Bike Co-op and City will continue to partner on this aspect of the SRTS
program to build a group of local instructors in schools. In addition to the training, mentoring opportunities are
provided to the trainees as part of the bicycle and pedestrian education classes hosted by the Bike Co-op.
BPEC will also work to create a “train the trainers” information clearinghouse to ensure graduates of the
program have the materials they need to teach pedestrian and bicycle safety on a regular basis. The goal is
to allow schools to continue to provide safe bicycling and walking classes beyond the current grant funding
cycle to create a sustainable program at each school.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
• Encouragement and Safety Events ($3,000): The City and BPEC will host walking and bicycling events
throughout the school year including International Walk to School Day, Autumn and Spring Bike to School
Days, Bike to School Week, and similar events. Educational materials promoting safety, healthy/active
lifestyles, and encouragement messages will be distributed by community partners at individual schools.
• Additional Grant Activities ($9,000): The grant includes $2,000 for the City to distribute free bicycle helmets
for students who receive free or reduced lunch. The grant also includes $7,000 for City staff to cover the cost
of administering the grant contract management responsibilities. This includes contract management and
program oversight, activity coordination with PSD Administration and individual schools, organization of
program volunteers, public awareness campaigns and website maintenance, management of the grant
partnerships, and evaluation and reporting.
The Fort Collins SRTS program will focus on reaching students, parents, school administrators, and teachers. The
goal of the program is to increase the number of children safely bicycling and walking to school, enhance safety
education, and increase awareness about the benefits of walking and bicycling.
In order to gauge the success of the program, students and parents will be surveyed before and after the program
using the National Center for Safe Routes to School student travel tally and parent survey. These surveys will be
administered by City staff at the beginning of the school year and at the end of the program. These surveys allow for
the collection of data on student travel behaviors as well as attitudes about walking or biking to school. Program
success will also be gauged by participation levels, such as approximately 30 percent of McGraw’s total enrollment
participating in the 2008 Spring Bike to School Day.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is providing 100 percent of the funds, with no required local
match. The funds will be allocated as outlined in the CDOT-approved scope of work (Attachment 1).
A purchase order from CDOT will identify a “start date” when the City can begin utilizing the grant funds. This date
is expected to coincide with the start of the 2011-12 school year.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Both the 2009 Citizen Survey and 2010 North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Household Travel
Survey noted the relative ease of traveling by walking or cycling in Fort Collins (approximately 17 percent of trips in
Fort Collins are completed by walking or cycling). The top concern at the 2009 Bicycle Safety Summit at Colorado
State University was a lack of education/awareness of rules among bicyclist and motorists. The Fort Collins Safe
Routes to School program will address concerns about lack of walking and bicycle safety education to promote healthy
lifestyles and increased walking and biking to school.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the 2011-12 SRTS grant application at its November 8, 2010 meeting prior
to submittal to CDOT. The BAC did not provide any comments at the meeting, but was invited to share any additional
thoughts with City staff via email. No additional comments were received.
August 16, 2011 -3- ITEM 16
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The 2011-12 SRTS grant application was developed and written by the City’s Transportation Planning staff and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition (BPEC). BPEC held several meetings to discuss a scope of work,
partnerships, and prepare the grant application with City staff. This collaborative approach incorporates new ideas
and partners. The following groups are receiving funding or donating time and services to accomplish the activities
outlined in the grant: City of Fort Collins Safe Routes to School and FC Bikes programs, Healthier Communities
Coalition, Poudre School District, Bicycle Colorado, Bike Co-op, Safe Kids Larimer County, Colorado Injury Control
Research Center (CSU), Poudre Hospital Paramedic Reserves, and FC Bike Library. A total of $68,600 in committed
local funds and/or in-kind donations from partnering organizations is included in the grant, an increase of $46,600 from
last year’s grant.
Public outreach will continue throughout the school year. Student, teacher, and principal feedback will be used to
refine the current and future programs to be responsive to community needs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2011-12 Safe Routes to School Scope of Work
2. Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, November 8, 2010
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
Section 1: How do you propose to help solve the problem you identified in Section 2?
The City of Fort Collins, along with community partners, proposes to solve the problems relative to
walking and bicycling to school identified in Section 2. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Education
Coalition (BPEC) has been working for the past year to build and expand a single, community-wide
effort to create the physical and psychological environment that will encourage parents to allow their
children to safely walk or bike to school. This work now includes idea sharing with nearby cities and
school districts engaged in Safe Routes to School (SRTS). The City of Fort Collins is the grant
administrator and a member of BPEC. This continued partnership will ensure that all BPEC activities
are integrated into existing Safe Routes to School activities to fully address the Five “Es” (education,
encouragement, engineering, evaluation and enforcement).
a) Describe the activity you plan to implement.
Encouragement Activities: The program will implement walking and bicycling events throughout the
school year, to include walking and biking school buses, International Walk to School Day, autumn
and spring Bike to School Days, and similar events. Educational materials and incentives promoting
safety, healthy/active lifestyles and encouragement messages will be distributed.
Education Activities:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Education Classes: Bicycle Colorado and BPEC members identified in Section
4 will conduct walking and bicycling safety classes. Students will be taught rules of the road, street
crossing safety and other necessary skills to help prevent bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Safe Kids
Larimer County will conduct bicycle helmet education aimed at 3rd grade students.
Master Cyclists “Train the Trainers” Program: In its second year, the program (run by the Bike Co-
op) will train 35 PE and other teachers and 25 parents or volunteers how to teach safe cycling and
walking to be included as a regular part of the Poudre School District (PSD) physical education
curriculum in elementary and middle schools. Participants will learn state-of-the-art bicycling and
walking safety practices, and teaching techniques. The program will focus on the schools identified in
Section 4, but will be available to staff in schools district wide. The trainings will be done by certified
League of American Bicyclist League Cycling Instructors.
“Train the Trainers” Resources: BPEC will create a central clearinghouse for existing and new online,
print and practical resources for graduates of the “train the trainers” program. These materials will
include existing, tested materials and new materials such as the curricula under development by
CDOT. PSD will be a key partner on any curricula development as they have final approval of any
potential implementation. This resource will encourage teachers to develop their own Safe Routes to
School safety program at a school, creating program sustainability and local training capacity.
b) How will it address the identified participation and safety problems in Section 2?
The City of Fort Collins will continue the successful partnership with a number of experienced
contractors, including the Healthier Communities Coalition, Fort Collins Bike Co-op and Bicycle
Colorado. These partnerships will enable the community to expand existing encouragement and
education programs within the City and PSD.
c) How will you ensure parents will encourage the children to bicycle and/or walk?
Parents will be included in the program through the train-the-trainers program, encouragement
volunteer opportunities and parent-teacher organizations. The City’s Safe Routes to School website
presents safe walking and bicycling routes to students and parents. PSD and Bicycle Colorado have
prepared several videos highlighting the benefits of safe walking and bicycling.
d) Who will manage the project if different from the contact person?
Matt Wempe (LCI #2671), City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning is the project manager.
e) Who are you going to target with your program?
We will target school administrators, parents, teachers and students. The focus will be on adults
(transportation gatekeepers) and students (bicycle and pedestrian education).
Page 1 of 6
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 2: What is the Problem? Tell us the current conditions for biking and walking in your
school area.
a) What are the current risks and/or obstacles (physical or perceived) to walking and/or bicycling to
and from your school site(s)?
For the time period of November 1, 2009-October 31, 2010, there were a total of 41 children/youth 4-
15 years old treated at either the Medical Center of the Rockies or Poudre Valley Hospital (the two
hospitals in the PSD boundary area) for significant traumatic injuries related to bike crashes (39) and
pedestrian/vehicle crashes (2). These data do not include kids with minor injuries who were treated in
and released from the emergency room, or when a trauma team was not activated. Of the 39 bike
accident patients, only 15 were documented as wearing a helmet. Five of the eight schools we’ve
identified to work with in Section 4 are located within the ZIP code areas where the majority of the
bicycle accidents and one of the two pedestrian/vehicle crash took place (the ZIP code area where the
second pedestrian/vehicle crash occurred is unknown).
b) Please provide other significant information such as crash data, traffic counts, speed limits,
environmental factors, or other safety issues, as appropriate.
Please see the attached bicycle and pedestrian collision data documentation. An important conclusion
is that the proposed comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle education program will address all of the
bicycle and pedestrian collision causes (i.e. broadside, “right hook”, riding on the wrong side of the
street). 2010 summary data is not available at the time of this grant application. Many of the issues
identified in the 2009 data are still relevant today.
c) Complete the following information for each school affected by the proposed program:
Please see the appendix for the requested information for each school and district-wide (K-8).
d) Describe any existing programs at the affected school(s) that educate or enhance walking or
bicycling to school. This should be completed by the principal of the school and include
information pertaining to any:
There are several existing district-wide walking and bicycling programs. The Bicycle and Pedestrian
Education Coalition (BPEC) was formed to help unite these efforts into a comprehensive district-wide
approach.
The Fort Collins Safe Routes to School program provides encouragement activities throughout
the Poudre School District (PSD), like Int’l Walk to School Day and Bike to School Day.
Safe Kids Larimer County conducts Strap & Snap helmet fittings and bicycle rodeos in 3rd
grade classrooms.
The Poudre School District's Wellness Program includes more than 30 schools who participate
in such activities as school wellness teams, walkathons, running clubs, Fuel Up to Play student
teams, activity breaks in the classroom, activity competitions such as "Schools on the Move"
challenge, healthy eating projects/lessons, wellness days and other school policy work that
helps establish an environment that encourages healthy behaviors and habits for students, staff,
and families.
The Bike Co-op trains PE teachers and volunteers as “Master Cyclists” to provide safety
education in elementary and middle schools’ physical education classes.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning department coordinates City and PSD efforts to
address all Five “Es,” plus reports to the PSD Board of Education and Fort Collins City Council.
Page 2 of 6
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
Section 3: Please describe your timeline from project start to finish.
a) Project Timeline:
Date Milestone
August 2011
CDOT Authorization to Proceed
BPEC Meeting – Statewide Curriculum Review
Kick-off meetings/Back-to-School meetings
September 2011
BPEC Meeting – Train the Trainer Resource Development
PSD Meeting – Begin Curriculum Review
Encouragement Event
Train the Trainer classes
Conduct NCSRTS Pre-Program Data Surveys
October 2011
BPEC Meeting – Train-the-Trainer Resource Development
PSD Meeting – Curriculum Review
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Classes
Train-the-Trainer classes
Encouragement Event – International Walk to School Day
November 2011
BPEC Meeting
PSD Meeting – Curriculum Review and Implementation Plan (pending
PSD approval)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Classes
Train-the-Trainer Classes
December 2011 to
March 2012
BPEC Meeting
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Classes
Train-the-Trainer Mentoring (part of education classes)
Strap & Snap Program
April 2012
BPEC Meeting
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Classes
Train-the-Trainer Mentoring and Facilitation (part of education
classes)
Final Evaluation and Completion of Train-the-Trainer Resource
Encouragement Event
Strap & Snap Program
Conduct NCSRTS Post-Program Data Surveys
May 2012
BPEC Meeting
Encouragement Event - National Bike Month
End-of-Year Celebration
Strap & Snap Program
June 2012 BPEC Meeting – Program Evaluation and Reporting
July 2012 BPEC Meeting – Program Evaluation and Reporting
Final CDOT Grant Report
Page 3 of 6
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
Section 4: Who are your partners – what collaborations have you created to ensure the success of
your project?
The City of Fort Collins will continue the partnership with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Education
Coalition (BPEC) to coordinate local walking and bicycling education efforts, and promote tolerance
and safety between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists as more pedestrians and bicyclists take to the
streets. BPEC is coordinated and facilitated by the Healthier Communities Coalition of Larimer
County, a nonprofit entity that works to connect the community for kids by serving as a relationship
broker, networker, communicator, convener, facilitator, researcher and capacity builder for the family
and youth service providers throughout Larimer County.
By working together from the grassroots level with the support of local governing agencies, safety and
enforcement agencies, and local health systems, the BPEC is bringing a coordinated approach to the
development and implementation of our community’s Safe Routes to School program.
City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning* – Grant administrator and project manager
Poudre School District*
o The program will serve all elementary (24) and middle schools (8) within the boundaries
of Fort Collins, with a focus on schools that have not yet participated in Safe Routes to
School. The City of Fort Collins has worked with all but four elementary and four middle
schools. A full list of schools is available at http://www.psdschools.org.
o Elementary Schools: Harris Bilingual Immersion School, Johnson Elementary, Lab
School for Creative Learning, Linton Elementary
o Middle Schools: Boltz, Kinard Core Knowledge, Preston, Webber
o Facilities Services, Wellness, Transportation, Curriculum and Security Departments
Healthier Communities Coalition* –BPEC facilitator and liaison; education curriculum and
training development; marketing materials; and technical assistance
Fort Collins Bike Co-op* – Coordination with BPEC on the train-the-trainers program; conduct
in-class education to mentor new trainers
Poudre Valley Health System EMT Reserves* - Volunteer participation in the train-the-trainer
program and coordination with BPEC for encouragement and education classes (volunteer time
is indicated as donated goods and services in Section 6)
Bicycle Colorado – Statewide bicycle advocacy organization will conduct in-class education
Safe Kids Larimer County* – Administer Strap and Snap bicycle helmet program
Bike Fort Collins* & Fort Collins Cycling Club* – Provide League Cycling Instructors (LCIs)
to assist with bicycle and pedestrian education classes and the train-the-trainer program
Colorado Injury Control Research Center* – In-kind evaluation and other technical assistance
City of Fort Collins Engineering – Coordination on infrastructure changes and technical
expertise
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations – Coordination on school zones, crosswalks, pedestrian
signals and other items impacting the operation of the transportation network
City of Fort Collins Police Services* – Coordination on enforcement efforts and safety
outreach
FC Bikes* (City’s bicycling program) – Support for events and education
* Indicates a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition
Page 4 of 6
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 5: How will you measure your success?
a) Identify your project outcomes.
The goal of this program is to 1) increase the number of children and youth safely bicycling and
walking to school; 2) increase the number of children and youth who receive pedestrian and bicycle
education to reduce parents’ safety concerns related to bicycling and walking; 3) provide “train-the-
trainer” education to 35 PE and other teachers and 25 parents or volunteers; and 4) create program
sustainability by building local training capacity.
b) How will you conduct pre- and post-project surveys to indicate your outcomes?
Students and parents will be pre- and post-program tested using the National Center for Safe Routes to
School student travel tally and parent survey. These surveys will be administered at the beginning and
end of the school year to measure the success of the program. These surveys allow for the collection
of data on student travel behaviors, as well as attitudes about walking or biking to school. We also
will implement site audits of each school separate from this grant application to identify potential
issues in the school’s physical environment.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition – The overall success of the BPEC will be measured using
process evaluation indicating satisfaction, participation and effectiveness. This will include measuring
the number of overall objectives that were met by the end of the school year. We will compare 2011-
2012 outcomes with 2010-2011 outcomes.
Master Cylist Train-the-Trainer Program – We will measure how many trainers are trained and how
many students receive education by those trainers.
External Education Programs – The Snap and Strap Helmet Program will use its existing evaluation
methods to determine the number of students impacted during the school year.
c) How are you going to work with your data after the project is completed?
The data collected through the parent and student surveys, as well as the school site audits, will be used
to inform policy decisions and help refine the Safe Routes program focus for the future. The audit and
survey results will allow City, PSD personnel and community partners to effectively address on-going
trends and issues in the physical environment that might otherwise preclude students from walking or
biking to school.
d) What type of information-sharing will you do as a follow-up to your project?
Data from the overall BPEC evaluation, “train the trainers” program, bicycle and pedestrian education
classes, student travel tally and parent surveys, school site audits, will be shared with the principals of
each school, students, parents, the Safe Routes to School Task Force, the Coalition for Activity and
Nutrition to Defeat Obesity (who also shares these data with the Colorado Department of Health and
the Environment), Safe Kids Larimer County, PSD staff and administration, Poudre Valley Health
System Community Health and Ambulance Departments, county school officials and other schools
who may be interested in the effectiveness of Safe Routes to School programs in the State of Colorado.
These data will also be reported back to the National Center for Safe Routes to School for sharing with
other states.
Page 5 of 6
2011-12 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 6: BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NON-INFASTRUCTURE (EDUCATION)
PROJECTS ONLY local funds and in-kind donations are not required, but encouraged
Item
Requested
SRTS
Funds
Committed
Local Funds
Value of In-
Kind Total Cost
External Personnel
Healthier Communities Coalition
(BPEC Administration) $12,000 $5,600 $17,600
Bicycle Colorado - Bicycle and
Pedestrian Education Classes
($40/hour for two instructors- 140
hours per school at three schools)
$16,800 $16,800
BPEC Members - Bicycle and
Pedestrian Education Classes
($30/hour for two instructors – 140
hours per school at ten schools)
$42,000 $30,000 (EMT
Reserves) $72,000
Fort Collins Bike Co-op - “Train
the Trainer” Program $12,000 $12,000
Safe Kids Larimer County - Strap
and Snap Bicycle Helmet Program $2,500
$6,000 ($3,000
in other grants) $8,500
Internal Personnel
City of Fort Collins
Grant Administration and
Education Class Coordination
$7,000 $7,000 $14,000
Social Marketing $2,000 in other
grant funding $2,000
Website Enhancements – Resource
Clearinghouse $5,000 $5,000
Equipment and Supplies
Train the Trainer Resource
Development – Materials and
BPEC/PSD Review
$2,500 $2,500
Prizes and awards for students $3,000 $3,000
Helmets for students who receive
free or reduced lunch $2,000 $2,000
Fort Collins Bicycle Library – Kids
Bike Fleet (20 bicycles) $4,000 $4,000
Evaluation
Colorado Injury Control Research
Center - Technical Assistance and
Report Preparation
$8,000 $8,000
Facility Rental
Meeting space at schools $1,000 $1,000
TOTALS: $99,800 $20,600 $48,000 $168,400
Change from 2010-11 Grant +$11,550 +$13,600 +$33,000 +$58,150
1
FINAL MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 8, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970-310-5238
Vice Chair: Cathy Mathis 970-217-9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970-224-6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970-416-2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
UniverCity Connections: Rick Reider
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-Op: Doug Cutter
Parks and Recreation Board: Dawn Theis
Air Quality Board: Greg McMaster
Poudre School District: John Holcombe
Bike Fort Collins: Jeff Morrell
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
At Large: Kim Sharpe
ABSENT
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Colorado State University: David Hansen
At Large: Cathy Mathis
Land Conservation & Steward Board: Paul Mills
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Clint Skutchan
Senior Advisory Board: Vacant
Transportation Board: Vacant
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Citizen: Michael Craft
Citizen: Michael Eade
Citizen: Elana Hurwitz
Citizen: Josh Kerson
Citizen: Tommy Klender
Citizen: Leroy Cynkar
Citizen: Sylvia Cranmer
Citizen: Chad Moyer
2
City of Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director
City of Fort Collins: Gail Neben, Transportation Planning Administrative Assistant
City of Fort Collins: Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner
Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM.
Agenda review:
Chair Rick Price reviewed the agenda. Members and guests viewed a video on the
prepared for the Oregon Legislature on the “Idaho Stop Law” for bicyclists: Bicycles,
Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop by Spencer Boomhower (http://vimeo.com/4140910)
Approval of minutes:
Morrell: One visitor was not listed on last minutes.
Motion to approve the October 2010 Meeting Minutes as amended was made by
Kim Sharpe.
Motion was seconded by Dan Gould.
Minutes were approved.
Public Comments:
Michael Craft, New Belgium Tour de Fat Coordinator: I will have more of a recap
next month. Right now we are collecting short films. We raised about $300,000 this year.
I will also present the recap to the brewery. The next Tour de Fat is scheduled on Labor
Day weekend for Fort Collins in 2011. I am happy to share this information as it gets
closer.
Josh Kerson: I am speaking from the electric bicycle industry. I have been in the electric
assist bike industry 10 years. Our opinion is that the majority of electric assist bike users
are the crowd that is about to retire. They are using this assistive technology to climb hills
and go a little further faster. I am asking the City to please reflect the Federal and the
State point of view in that the DOT has determined these to be bicycles, not motorized
vehicles. They have put restrictions on speed and strength and allow them on trails. It is
up to local government to make decisions on whether to allow these on paths. We’re
looking for access to the multi-use paths with assisted bicycles.
Reider: Did you say that these bikes are excluded from the non-motorized rulings on
Federally funded rail trails and multiuse paths.
Kerson: Yes sir, they are not included if the path says “no motorized vehicles” on the
path. They should be permitted. It is a bicycle, not a motorized vehicle.
Morrell: What are the requirements?
Kerson: They are 750 watt and 1 hp that propels with a 170 pound rider up to 20 mph. If
it passes that it is governed by national safety products bike law not the DOT.
Action items:
Electric Bike Use (part 2) Update - David Kemp
11
program is intended to include. Contracts that include the scope of work do go to City
Council so we’d be glad to share those with the BAC and the Transportation Board. The
timing will be based on the contracting process.
Price: Other Questions on this?
Why was this an Action Item on the agenda? Do you need something from the
committee?
Bracke: The staff originally scheduled this as a discussion item. The chair requested this
as an action item. I do not know what action the committee wants to take. If we get the
FC Bikes program approved for funding, then staff will bring it to this committee for
input each funding cycle (typically annually or every two years) as part of the contracting
process that goes to City Council. The timing will be based on the contracting process.
BAC 2011 Work Plan – Rick Price
I have a draft work plan written for you. (Handed out hard copies.)
The two major changes are: I dropped the encouragement clause and added an
enforcement clause at the bottom.
Bracke: In the interest in time, will we get to the SRTS info update? It is due in
December.
Price: Do we want to give input for SRTS 2011-12?
Bracke: Can we do something electronic?
Price: PSD, BPEC and the Co-op will be involved. Do we want to have input? No
response. Ok we will drop it.
Price: I dropped the encouragement portion because this group needs to be concerned
with implementation and funding for the Education Plan. Continuing on economic
development issues, etc. We’ve addressed innovative policies. We should have input on
metrics. And, we should sit and talk to the Chief of Police and see how we could come
together on the scofflaws. Any questions?
Morrell: I would like to see the original 2010 Work Plan. There is not enough time now.
Cutter: Can we see the original by electronics?
Copies of the 2010 BAC Workplan were distributed at the prior meeting and will be sent
electronically along with the next meeting agenda for December.
Safe Routes to School 2011-12 Application Update – Matt Wempe
Price: We have three minutes for this item.
Wempe: In the interest of time you can send me an email if anyone has any comments. I
am continuing to work with the BPEC. We are continuing to do pedestrian and bike
education classes and figuring out how to expand them. We tried to use volunteers in the
past, and maybe we can expand on this. We are working on expanding the train the
trainers program for school staff and teachers. This year I am looking at ways to work
with CDOT and schools to go district wide. My contact information is on the slide. I am
in the process of doing an infrastructure grant application as well.
SRTS Bike Co-op Current Program – Rick Price
Price: I can send the Train the Trainer program electronically. (Handed some hard
copies out.)
ORDINANCE NO. 103, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND FOR THE FY 2011-2012
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Safe Routes to School Program established by the Colorado Department of
Transportation (“CDOT”) is designed to promote the safety of students traveling to and from school
and to encourage more students to choose walking or bicycling to and from school; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Transportation Planning Division has received a Safe Routes to
School Program (the “Program”) grant in the amount of $99,800 from CDOT to fund non-
infrastructure programming in fourteen local schools that will be identified by City staff and its
community partners over the summer based on selection criteria such as location, safety issues,
student demographics, and school wellness initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the programming will include in-class education; a “Train the Trainers”
program; walking and bicycling safety and encouragement events; free bicycle helmets for low-
income students; federally-mandated data collection on walking and bicycling at the fourteen
schools; and staff costs for program administration; and
WHEREAS, there is no requirement for local matching funds associated with the Program;
and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of grant funds totaling $99,800
will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Transportation Services Fund - FY 2011-2012
Safe Routes to School program to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues
to be received during the fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the
Transportation Services Fund the sum of NINETY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($99,800) to provide non-infrastructure programming for fourteen local schools in the
Safe Routes to School Program.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Perrie McMillen
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in the General Fund for Police
Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating Budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A grant in the amount of $45,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile
Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the
RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other
offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a
meeting with the offender, the victim/victim representative and members of the community to determine the harm done
by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal Justice
Officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of the victims and
affected community will be addressed. An $8,700 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating funds from
the police operating budget designated for Restorative Justice Services. Total required match is 25% so an additional
$6,300 in-kind match was included in the grant application from the Eighth Judicial District Probation Department. The
grant period is from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Restorative Justice Services and its two programs, RESTORE for shoplifting offenses, and RJCP (Restorative Justice
Conferencing Program) for all other offenses, has been grant funded since its inception in 2000. Council yearly
accepts grant funds from Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and other grant funding agencies, to support
Restorative Justice Services. The RJS programs are supported by three grants and some money from the City. Since
it began, Restorative Justice Services has provided a restorative justice alternative to nearly 2,000 young people who
committed chargeable offenses in the community.
The objective of the RJS programs is to educate young people who have committed offenses about how others are
impacted by their actions, words and behaviors. The intention is that young people, who understand how they, their
families, friends and community are harmed by their actions, and who have been held accountable for the harm they
caused, will make better future decisions and not commit the same or similar crime again. Reducing future criminal
behavior and keeping young people out of the justice system, both contribute positively to a safer and healthier
community.
Without grant funding and the support of the City, Restorative Justice Services would not be a service available to
young people and their families, the courts, law enforcement and our community. The Eighth Judicial District Probation
Department donates administrative staff time (its restorative justice specialist) to help coordinate the RESTORE
Program, the RJS shoplifting component.
In addition, space to hold the monthly RESTORE sessions is donated by LifePointe Church in Fort Collins.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The grant money in the amount of $45,000 from Division of Criminal Justice, Juvenile Diversion Grants, provides
funding for the continuation of Restorative Justice Services. The match requirement of $8,700 will be met by
appropriating funds from the Police Services operating budget, designated for Restorative Justice. The total required
match is 25% so an additional $6,300 in-kind match was included in the grant application from the Eighth Judicial
District Probation Department.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
Diverting youth and young adults from the justice system relieves pressure on Fort Collins Municipal Court and the
8th Judicial District Court and saves courts personnel time and money.
Reducing future shoplifting, theft and other criminal behavior by young people who have participated in the RJS
programs will have a long-term positive impact on the economic health of the community by keeping young people
out of the justice system, thereby improving their future employment options and encouraging young people to not
shoplift or participate in other criminal behavior.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There is no known or measurable impact on the environment. In RESTORE, education about the impact of shoplifting
on the environment (excess packaging to prevent theft that ends up in our landfill) is part of the program, so there may
be some future positive impact on the environment if fewer youth continue to shoplift. Occasionally there may be a
positive impact on the environment when young people are educated about when and how their actions have an
environmental impact. The programs have no known negative impact on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. RESTORE Program Information Sheet
2. RJCP Information Sheet
A Restorative Justice Program for Merchants, Community and Young Shoplifters
WHAT IS IT?
The RESTORE Program provides a voluntary opportunity for youth and young adults who have
shoplifted to deal with their charge in a way that is meaningful to them and the community.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
When a youth is referred by the Fort Collins Municipal Court or Larimer County District Attorney’s
Office, a RESTORE intake form is completed. The youth and a parent or guardian (if youth is under
age 18) attend an arraignment, two RESTORE sessions and complete a contract, as described below.
A pre and post survey is also administered as part of the program.
RESTORE Session #1 has three parts and will take approximately 3.5 hours.
Part 1- Speakers discuss the impact of shoplifting on the merchant community, law enforcement,
the court system, families, and the larger community. They will also hear other youth speak about
how shoplifting has affected them, their peers, and their families.
Part 2 – The youth and their parents will meet in smaller groups to talk about the incidents they were
involved with and how they have been affected by this incident. This group will also include other
young shoplifters, their parents, community members, and merchant representatives, and will be
facilitated by RESTORE Volunteers.
Part 3 - When the group sessions are complete, each youth and with his/her parent or guardian
develop and sign a contract to repair the harm to the victim, the community, their family and
themselves, including eight hours community service. They will also sign up for a contract
completion date and time to return to Session #2.
RESTORE Session #2 will take approximately one hour.
About one month after Session #1, the youth will return to the RESTORE program with all of their
completed contract items. They will meet with a small group of volunteers who will review the
contract and verification of items completed. .
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE RESTORE PROGRAM, YOUTH CAN:
• learn more about shoplifting and how it affects merchants, community, families, peers
• repair the harm done by the incident in a meaningful way
• make choices about the consequences for their actions
• have their theft charge dismissed upon successful completion of the program
FEE: Cost is $50 (cash or money order made out to City of Fort Collins: Restorative Justice). A
reduced fee is available for families who qualify. A $25 administrative fee is added for rescheduling
a session.
ATTENDANCE AT BOTH SESSIONS IS MANDATORY. IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND
YOUR SCHEDULED SESSIONS, YOU WILL BE EXPELLED FROM THE PROGRAM
AND REFERRED BACK TO COURT.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about the RESTORE Program, contact:
Bernadette Martinez (Probation Department) 970-498-5844 x1
Perrie McMillen (Restorative Justice Services) 970-566-8160
Repairing the harm of crime for victims, young offenders and community
WHAT IS IT?
The Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) provides a voluntary opportunity for young people
(age 10-20) who have committed misdemeanor offenses to deal with their charge in a way that is
meaningful to them and the community.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
The Fort Collins Municipal Court or Larimer County District Attorney’s Office has referred you. You
will attend a court arraignment and meet with RJCP staff, who will explain the RJCP program. If you
decide to participate, you will complete preliminary forms and sign up for the program. You will also be
asked to take a survey, which is confidential and used for grant purposes. If you are under 18 years of age,
your parent/guardian must attend the arraignment and the RJCP meetings with you.
Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP)
RJCP consists of three meetings, totaling 4-6 hours, and contract obligations to fulfill in between.
Meeting #1 – (1-1.5 hours) You and your parent/guardian will meet with RJCP facilitators for a
preconference meeting. At this meeting you will learn more about the RJCP process and will prepare for
the upcoming RJ circle. You will discuss the incident and explore your thoughts and feelings about the
incident and who has been impacted by it. Your parent will also discuss how the incident has impacted the
family. You will have homework to develop ideas on how to repair the harm caused by the incident.
Meeting #2 – (2-3 hours) You and your parent/guardian will meet with the victim/victim representative,
other offenders (if there are any), community representatives and the RJCP facilitators in a face-to-face
meeting. The discussion will focus on who has been harmed by the incident, how they have been harmed,
and what can be done to repair the harm. The circle will develop a contract to address repairing the harm
caused by the incident. The contract will include a minimum of 20 restorative hours for you to fulfill.
Meeting #3 – (1 hour) You and your parent/guardian will return for a follow-up interview with RJCP staff
and/or volunteers when your contract obligations are complete (usually about a month). You must bring
written verification of all contract items to this interview. You will review your understanding of the harm
done by the incident, and any experiences you have had or things you have learned through the process.
Other participants from the circle will be invited to attend the interview, and may or may not be present.
You will also complete the survey taken at the court arraignment. If all contract items are complete and
verified, you will have completed the program.
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE RJCP PROGRAM, YOU CAN:
• learn more about your offense and how it affected the victim, community, your family, yourself
• repair the harm done by the incident in a meaningful way
• make choices about the consequences of your actions
• have your charge dismissed upon successful completion of the program
FEE: Cost is $50 (cash or money order to: City of Fort Collins – RJ). We do NOT accept checks. A
reduced fee is available for families who qualify.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about the RJCP Program, contact:
Mary-Claire Geiss or Perrie McMillen (970) 416-2290
ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING
THE TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED
IN THE POLICE SERVICES OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice has awarded the City of Fort Collins
Police Services a grant in the amount of $45,000 for operating expenses associated with the
operation of the Restorative Justice Services for the 2011-12 grant cycle (the “Grant”); and
WHEREAS, the Restorative Justice Service is an alternative to the traditional criminal
justice system and the program seeks to hold young offenders accountable by facilitating a meeting
with the offender, the victim and members of the community to determine the harm done by the
crime, and how to repair the harm; and
WHEREAS, the Grant provides 75% of the total cost of $60,000 for the 2011-2012
Restorative Justice Services operating expenses; and
WHEREAS, the Grant requires a match of 25% ($15,000), which will be funded by the City
in the amount of $8,700 through available funds in the General Fund Police Services operating
budget, and the remaining required match of $6,300 will be an in-kind match from the Eighth
Judicial District Probation Department; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Restorative Justice
Services grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General
Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund
during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to
another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains
unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General
Fund the sum of FORTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($45,000) for expenditure in the General
Fund for Restorative Justice Services.
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($8,700) is hereby authorized for transfer from the Police Services operating
budget in the General Fund to the Police Services grant project for Restorative Justice Services and
appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: John Voss
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City of Fort Collins,
Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate
Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the Stormwater Utility Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $8,750,000 to pay off the 2002 Storm Drainage Revenue bonds. The funding source is
the proceeds from the 2011A Storm Drainage refunding bonds. Market conditions are such that they can be
refinanced at lower interest rates, resulting in an estimated net present value savings of $500,000.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2002 the Storm Drainage Fund issued $12.3 million of revenue bonds. The bonds have interest rates that range
from 3% to 5% and the final payment is due December 1, 2022. The proceeds were used for improvements to the
Dry Creek Basin and the Canal Importation, Ponds, and Outfall project.
The passage of Amendment 1 (the TABOR Amendment) by the Colorado voters in 1992 required the City to form
enterprises in order for its utilities to be able to issue municipal bonds without an election. Since that time, all utility
bonds have been issued by the appropriate utility enterprise. However, the City Charter grants only the Council the
power to appropriate the funds. Therefore, this action by the Council is necessary in order to appropriate the bond
proceeds for the Storm Drainage Utility. Authorizing the issuance of the bonds and appropriating the proceeds are
both necessary to complete the bond transaction.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The remaining 2002 Bonds to be refunded carry interest rates that range from 4.25% to 5%. The proposed refunding,
at current market rates, will be below 3% and result in a savings estimated to be approximately $500,000 in present
value terms. However, the actual savings and final rate will be a function of the market and are subject to change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. Market rates are currently very favorable for
refinancing. Because it is unlikely that rates could go any lower than they are right now, staff does not recommend
waiting to refinance at a later date in an effort to achieve greater savings.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On June 2, 2011, the Council Finance Committee recommended moving forward with refinancing the 2002 Storm
Drainage Bonds.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Finance Committee minutes, June 2, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO, STORMWATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE,
STORMWATER UTILITY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2011A,
IN THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF $8,750,000 IN THE STORMWATER UTILITY FUND
WHEREAS, upon passage on first and second reading of Ordinance No. 009, of the Board
of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Stormwater Utility Enterprise (the “Bond Ordinance”), the
Enterprise intends to issue City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater
Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of
$8,750,000 (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds, and the appropriation of the proceeds thereof, is
necessary to complete the refunding, paying and discharging or all or a portion of the Stormwater
Enterprise’s outstanding Storm Drainage Revenue Refunding Bonds and Improvement Bonds, Series
2002; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the Bonds, in the amount of $8,750,000, were not included in
the 2011 budget, and the appropriation of such proceeds is necessary to authorize the payment to
the refunded bond escrow agent and of bond issuance costs; and
WHEREAS, Section 19.3(b) of Article V of the City Charter provides that an enterprise
board of the City shall not exercise any power reserved to the City Council by the City Charter or
otherwise, except the power to issue revenue bonds and other obligations; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in conjunction with all previous appropriations for that
fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received
during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the previously
unappropriated proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of $8,750,000 will not cause the total amount
appropriated in the relevant funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues
to be received during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the previously unappropriated proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of EIGHT
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,750,000) are hereby
appropriated in the Stormwater Fund for payment to the refunded bond escrow agent and bond
issuance costs contingent upon the final adoption of the Bond Ordinance and the final sale and
issuance of the Bonds by the Enterprise.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation
of Councilmembers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary
because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished
through administrative action of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On April 8, 1997, the voters of Fort Collins approved an amendment to Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter,
pertaining to the compensation of Councilmembers, providing that, commencing in 1998, the amounts of compensation
of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index.
In January 1999, Council enacted a new section in the City Code relating to Council compensation. Council
periodically amends this section of the City Code so that it accurately reflects the amount of compensation, adjusted
for inflation, that is currently paid to Councilmembers. These amendments sometimes create the misimpression
among members of the public that the City Council is, by adopting an amending ordinance, increasing the
compensation of its members, when, in fact, adjustment of Council compensation is accomplished through
administrative action of the City Manager.
Since the current amount of Councilmember compensation is readily available to members of the public through
sources other than the City Code, such as the City’s website and financial records of the City, this Ordinance repeals
Section 2-575 of the City Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 107, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING SECTION 2-575 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCILMEMBERS
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1997, the electorate of the City approved certain amendments to the
City Charter; and
WHEREAS, one such amendment was an amendment to Article II, Section 3 of the City
Charter, pertaining to the compensation of Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter, as amended, provides that,
commencing in 1998, the amounts of compensation of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be
adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, the adjustment of Council compensation, pursuant Article II, Section 3 of the
City Charter, is accomplished though administrative action of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 233, 1998, amending
the City Code by the addition of a new section relating to Council compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council periodically amends this section of the City Code so that it
accurately reflects the amount of compensation, adjusted for inflation, that is currently paid to
Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, such amendments sometimes create the misimpression among members of the
public that the City Council is, by adopting the amending ordinance, increasing the compensation
of its members, whereas such increases actually occur automatically under the above-referenced City
Charter provision; and
WHEREAS, the current amount of Councilmember compensation is readily available to
members of the public through sources other than the City Code, such as the City’s website and
financial records of the City; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests
of the City to repeal Section 2-575 of the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2-575 is repealed in its entirety.
Sec. 2-575. Compensation of City Councilmembers.
Commencing January 1, 2009, the compensation for all Councilmembers except
the Mayor shall be six hundred seventy-five dollars ($675.) per month and the
compensation of the Mayor shall be one thousand five dollars ($1,005.) per month.
These amounts shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the
Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Justin Scharton
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City Property to the Lower
Poudre Augmentation Company.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arapaho Bend Natural Area is located along the Cache la Poudre River near I-25 and East Harmony Road. The Lower
Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) owns property immediately to the south of the portion of Arapaho Bend that
lies east of I-25. A wire fence separates the two properties. A recent boundary survey revealed the fence separating
the two properties was located slightly north of the described property line. The fence has been in place for greater
than 18 years and has been recognized by the Natural Areas Program (NAP) and LPAC as the boundary of the Natural
Area since the property was purchased in 2000. The strip of property between the fence and the described boundary
line contains 0.703 acres. City staff determined that it was necessary to explore options for cleaning up the boundary
issue to ensure clear boundary lines for future access, maintenance and use of the sites for both the NAP and LPAC.
After meeting with LPAC on site and commissioning a survey of the boundary and fence lines, City staff proposed that
this narrow strip of land described as City property be conveyed to LPAC in exchange for an access easement across
the LPAC property and LPAC agreed. The current access to this portion of Arapaho Bend is limited and unsafe, with
NAP staff accessing the natural area via the I-25 right of way. The access easement across the LPAC property will
provide safe and permanent access for NAP staff.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) constructed the Harmony 25 Reservoir on the property to the south
of the Arapaho Bend eastern parcel in 2010. During the construction of the reservoir a survey determined the
boundary fence separating Arapaho Bend and the LPAC property was constructed several feet to the north of the
actual property line. NAP staff determined the fence was constructed by the previous owners of Arapaho Bend, was
in excess of 18 years in age, and had been recognized and treated as the property boundary since the site was
purchased by NAP in 2000. LPAC was already occupying the land in question when the NAP acquired the property
in 2000. These issues potentially cloud the City’s ownership of the strip, which is why staff is proposing conveying the
strip of land by quitclaim deed rather than by warranty deed. The proposed conveyance of this narrow strip of land
will restore the property boundary line to the location all parties have recognized as the property boundary for upwards
of 20 years in an amicable manner, while the City receives the added benefit of the access easement across the LPAC
property.
Currently, NAP staff must access Arapaho Bend NA by driving northbound on I-25 from the Harmony Road
interchange, pulling off onto the shoulder of the Interstate and driving down into the CDOT right of way along the
eastern side of I-25. This access route is unsafe and in inclement weather access can be impossible. The proposed
access easement across the LPAC property would allow staff to access to Arapaho Bend NA via the Wal-Mart parking
lot from East Harmony Road, then driving along the eastern and northern shores of the Harmony 25 Reservoir to
access Arapaho Bend NA (See Attachment 2). This access route is much safer, permanent, and accessible
throughout the year. The access easement will be used for NAP staff to access Arapaho Bend NA for maintenance,
research and monitoring, and emergency services of the property.
LPAC and the NAP have agreed that the existing fence alignment is the most appropriate boundary for the Natural
Area because it provides sufficient room for access and maintenance of the properties. The area along the north
boundary of the LPAC property currently has an access road that was constructed as part of the Reservoir
improvements in 2010. City staff and LPAC agreed that if the fence were to be relocated to the surveyed property
boundary, it would interfere with the access road (including its intended use to provide access to the City under the
terms of the proposed exchange). Considering all the factors, staff feels that the best solution to resolve this boundary
issue while preserving access to the two properties is to quit claim to LPAC the small 0.703 acre area south of the
existing boundary fence in exchange for an access easement across the LPAC property.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
LPAC has agreed to the exchange. It also has agreed to pay the City an amount equal to fifty percent of the costs to
survey and document the new property boundary.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Both the City property and LPAC property are located within floodway and floodplain areas. The future plans for both
of these properties show they will be used for water storage, open space areas and recreation. Given this information,
the estimated market value for both properties is estimated to be minimal. The value of the 0.703 acres of land to be
conveyed to LPAC is approximately $3,500. NAP staff believes that the access easement being received in return
is of greater value. Additionally, the access easement to the NAP from LPAC is highly beneficial, creating a safe and
permanent access route across the LPAC parcel to the eastern portion of Arapaho Bend for maintenance, research
and monitoring, and emergency access. The result is a net benefit to the NAP.
LPAC has agreed to pay fifty percent of the survey costs, estimated to be approximately $1,000, associated with the
transaction and grant the access easement across their property to the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Natural Resources staff has determined there are no negative environmental impacts that will occur as a result of this
conveyance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 13, 2011, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to approve the recommendation
that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of the 0.703 acre portion of City property to the
Lower Poudre Augmentation Company via quit claim deed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Property Conveyance Location Map
2. City and LPAC Property Detail Maps and Slides
3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, July 13, 2011
MAIN
INTERSTATE 25
COUNTY ROAD 38
DIXON
KERN
5TH
4TH
EXIT 265
3RD
2ND
ENTER 265
WEITZEL
HARMONY
SUGAR
EXIT 265
3RD
INTERSTATE 25
ENTER 265
¹
Arapaho Bend Natural Area - Lower Poudre Augmentation Co. Quit Claim Location Map
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2011
Project Area
Larimer County
Existing Access Rd
Existing Fence
Reservoir Full Pool
City of Fort Collins NA Boundary
Parcels
0 125 250 500
Feet
ATTACHMENT 2
Photopoint 1
Photopoint 2
¹
Arapaho Bend Natural Area - Lower Poudre Augmentation Co. Quit Claim Detail Map
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2011
Project Area
Larimer County
Existing Access Rd.
Existing Fence
Reservoir Full Pool
City of Fort Collins NA Boundary
Parcels
0 50 100 200 300 Feet
ATTACHMENT 2
Photopoint 2 Photopoint 1
Arapaho Bend Northern Boundary Quit Claim Area
Photopoint
1 ‐
View from NE corner of reservoir property, looking west.
Existing Fenceline
(Proposed Boundary)
Quit Claim Area
Existing Access Road
Approx. Current Boundary
ATTACHMENT 2
Arapaho Bend NA
LPAC Property
Arapaho Bend Northern Boundary Quit Claim Area
Approx. Current
Boundary
Existing
Fenceline
(Proposed Boundary)
Photopoint
2 ‐
View from NW corner of reservoir property, looking east.
Existing Access Road
ATTACHMENT 2
Quit Claim Area
LPAC Property
Arapaho Bend NA
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 1
Excerpt - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Arapaho Bend Quit Claim Deed
• Figgs: Arapaho Bend is located along the Cache la Poudre River near I-25 and
Harmony Road. The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) owns property
to the south of the Arapaho Bend eastern parcel. A standard wire fence separates the
two properties. A recent boundary survey revealed the fence separating the two
properties was located to the north of the described property line. The fence has been
in place for greater than 18 years and has been recognized by Natural Areas Program
(NAP) as the boundary since the property was purchased. The NAP is seeking
authorization to convey the 0.746 acre portion of property via a Quit Claim to LPAC
to clear up this discrepancy in the deeds, in exchange for an access easement to be
granted to the City by LPAC.
• Mitchell: What is the cost of the survey?
• Figgs: The cost will be around $1,000.
• Grooms: Are there access roads all ready? What do you mean by LPAC granting
the City access?
• Figgs: The existing access to our property is off the I-25 north bound on ramp,
which may not be legal. LPAC will grant us a legal access across their property
on an existing road.
• Knowlton: Are there fish in the pond currently?
• Figgs: There will be. Timnath will build their portion of the Poudre trail along the
edge of the reservoir, and it’s my understanding that LPAC will allow fishing
access.
Germany moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend
that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of 0.746 acre
portion of Arapaho Bend Natural Area to the Lower Poudre Augmentation
Company. Grooms second. It was unanimously approved.
ORDINANCE NO. 108, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY
PROPERTY TO THE LOWER POUDRE AUGMENTATION COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land east of I-25 and north of Harmony Road
as described in Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “City Property”),
which property is part of Arapaho Bend Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) is the owner of a parcel of
land directly south of the City Property, as described in Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated
herein by reference (the “LPAC Property”); and
WHEREAS, a recent boundary survey disclosed that the boundary fence between the City
Property and the LPAC Property, which was constructed long before the City purchased the City
Property in 2000, is located north of the actual property boundary line; and
WHEREAS, the strip of property between the existing fence and the actual boundary line
contains approximately 3/4 of an acre, and is described on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated
herein by reference (the “Boundary Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, if the City were to relocate the boundary fence it would interfere with
improvements constructed on the LPAC Property; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the boundary discrepancy be resolved by
conveying the Boundary Parcel to LPAC by quitclaim deed in exchange for an access easement from
LPAC to the City across the LPAC Property, which easement would facilitate the City’s access to
the City Property; and
WHEREAS, City staff has identified no negative environmental impacts resulting from the
conveyance of the Boundary Parcel; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 13, 2011, the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the conveyance of the
Boundary Parcel to LPAC; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition
is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Boundary
Parcel to LPAC in exchange for an access easement across the LPAC Property is in the best interests
of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to quitclaim the Boundary Parcel to LPAC on terms consistent with this Ordinance,
together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City
Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but
not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the property to be conveyed, as long
as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
Page 1 of 1
City Property Description
Parcel:
87340-00-902
Legal Description:
POR OF FOL WHICH LIES E OF HWY I-25: COM AT NW COR 34-7-68,
TH E ON SEC LN 486 FT TO CEN OF CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER; S 34
41 E 1605.5 FT; S 58 13 E 1177 FT; E 1560 FT TO E LN OF SW 1/4 OF NE
1/4; S ON SD LN 700 FT TO SE COR OF SD SW 1/4 NE 1/4; W 1/4 MILE
TO CENTER OF SD SEC; S 1/2 MILE TO S 1/4 COR OF SD SEC; W 1/2
MILE TO SW COR OF SD SEC; N 1 MILE TPOB; EX HWY IN 824-141,
825-365, 1229-577, 1229-580, 1247-526, 1450-929, 864-491, 1726-668, 1733-
777; AND BEG AT NW COR 34-7-68, E ON SEC LN 486 FT, S 34 41' E
1605.5 FT, S 58 13' E 1177 FT, E 286.1 FT TPOB, N 32 26 E 286.2 FT, N 61
43 E 368.63 FT, S 57 2 E 445 FT, S 44 001/2 E 138.8 FT; TH S 69 51 E
215.49 FT; TH W 1150.19 FT TPOB LESS 20080065228
Exhibit “B”
Page 1 of 1
Lower Poudre Augmentation Company
Property Description
Parcel:
87344-21-005
Legal Description:
OUTLOT A, GATEWAY TIMNATH SUBDIVISION, TIM (20070061458)
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Justin Scharton
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2011, Authorizing a Grazing Lease on the Vangbo Property to Alison Person.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program (NAP) purchased the Vangbo Property in 2005. At the time of
purchase, the property was leased by the Person family as pasture for horses boarded at Mountain View Stables, a
local business also owned by the Persons. This lease is now expired and NAP is requesting authorization to enter
into a new lease for a period not to exceed five years. This lease will generate $9,000 the first year, $12,000 the
second, and $15,000 the third year. Should the lease extend to the fourth and fifth year, the rent will be adjusted
based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Vangbo Property is located on the east side of I-25 near Prospect Road, within what was planned to be the
Timnath Community Separator Area. The property totals approximately 105 acres in size and historically has been
leased to the Person family as horse pasture. Vegetation is dominated by smooth brome pasture grass with a few
scattered cottonwood trees. Irrigation infrastructure exists to irrigate the property via the Sand Dike Lateral.
The Persons have leased the Vangbo Property from the City since its purchase by NAP in 2005. The lease has
expired and NAP is requesting authorization to extend the grazing lease to Ms. Person for up to five additional years
beginning as of June 1, 2011. The lease allows Ms. Person to use the property as pasture for horses boarded on the
adjacent property (Mountain View Stables) and for horseback riding associated with the boarding activities. In addition,
the tenant is responsible for maintaining all fences, installing temporary fence to facilitate rotational grazing, controlling
noxious plants found on the property, and routine maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure. NAP staff must approve
the annual grazing plan and will inspect the property as needed to monitor the implementation of the plan.
As discussed with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board on July 13, 2011, it is the intent of the NAP to sell
this property with a conservation easement in place, dependent on review by the Board and approval by City Council.
The NAP has entered into negotiations with Ms. Person and continues to work toward a final agreement. The
reauthorization of the lease is necessary for Ms. Person to continue the use the property in the interim. If an
agreement cannot be reached, the five year time frame should allow for a sufficient amount of time to negotiate the
sale of the property with other potential buyers.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This lease will generate $9,000 the first year, $12,000 the second, and $15,000 the third year. Should the lease extend
to the fourth and fifth year, the rent will be adjusted based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U.
The leasing of this property will help support the economic health of Fort Collins and northern Larimer County. The
Vangbo Property will continue to be associated with Mountain View Stables, a popular local horse boarding stable
owned by Ms. Person.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No negative environmental impacts will occur as a result of this lease. The Vangbo Property is dominated by smooth
brome pasture grass with a few scattered cottonwood trees located along the irrigation system. The property will
continue to be irrigated and grazed using a managed rotational system that will allow periods of rest from grazing and
the regrowth of vegetation. The lease requires that any sensitive habitats or species be identified in the annual grazing
management plan and if required, fenced out of the grazing rotations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its July 13, 2011 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the lease.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, July 13, 2011
Excerpt from - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Vangbo Grazing Lease
• Figgs: The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program (NAP) purchased the Vangbo
Property in 2005. At the time of purchase, the property was leased by Person as
pasture for horses boarding at Mountain View Stables, a local business also owned by
Person. This lease is now expired and NAP is requesting authorization to enter into a
new lease for a period not to exceed five years. This lease will generate nine
thousand dollars ($9,000) the first year, twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) the second,
and fifteen thousand ($15,000) the third year. Should the lease extend to the fourth
and fifth year, the rent will be adjusted based on the Denver Boulder Greeley CPIU.
• Stanley: How well has the property been maintained?
• Figgs: Last year I noticed areas that had been, what I would consider, over
grazed, which is why we insisted on a grazing plan that we will monitor.
• Grooms: If part of the grazing program is violated who is responsible?
• Figgs: Our intent is to watch it closely enough that this won’t happen,
however we have options that we can exercise quickly should we notice a
problem.
Stanley moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend
that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing a grazing lease on the
Vangbo property to Alison Person for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
Grooms second. It was unanimously approved.
ORDINANCE NO. 109, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A GRAZING LEASE ON THE VANGBO
PROPERTY TO ALISON PERSON
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of that certain property commonly known as the Vangbo
property, located on the east side of I-25 south of Prospect Road, more particularly described as the
NW 1/4 and S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, T7N R68W of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer
County, Colorado (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property in 2005 as part of the City’s Natural Areas
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City plans to eventually sell the Property, reserving a conservation easement
on it; and
WHEREAS, when the City purchased the Property it was subject to an existing lease (the
“Original Lease”) held by Rod and Alison Person, the owners of an adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, the Persons used the Property for grazing and riding horses boarded on their
adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, the Original Lease has expired, and the Natural Areas Program would like to
continue leasing the Property to Alison Person for up to five years for grazing and associated
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rent for the property would be $9,000 for the first year with an
increase for each additional year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has negotiated a proposed Lease Agreement with Ms. Person (the
“Lease”), which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Lease wold be effective as of June 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 13, 2011, the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Lease as proposed; and
WHEREAS, Sections 23-111 and 23-114 of the City Code authorize the City Council to
lease any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that, for any lease
with a potential term of more than two years, the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that the lease
is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the lease of the Property pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance and the
Lease is in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Lease and such
additional documents as are necessary to lease the Property as of June 1, 2011, on terms and
conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions or
subsequent amendments or corrections as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney,
determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited
to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the leased area, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the leased area.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-069 Appointing Two Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Appointments to the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Policy Committee are made each fall and members serve for
a one-year period from September through August. Each member municipality of the League is entitled to a
representative, and all cities over 100,000 are entitled to designate two representatives.
The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the League Executive
Board, positions of support, opposition, no position or amendment to a wide variety of legislation affecting cities and
towns. At each annual conference in June, the Policy Committee proposes to the membership, revisions to the
League’s policies which guide League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities.
The Committee meets three or four times a year, before and during legislative sessions as well as in May prior to the
annual conference. CML has asked that representatives be appointed by the end of July and has been notified that
a resolution appointing Fort Collins’ two representatives is scheduled to be considered on August 16. The first CML
Policy Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, October 6.
This Resolution appoints one Councilmember, to be selected at this meeting, and City Manager Darin Atteberry to
represent the City of Fort Collins on the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-069
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPOINTING TWO REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE POLICY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Colorado Municipal League (the “League”) is an influential voice for
municipal interests on state and federal policies affecting municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the League is also an important source of information for municipal officials
in serving their communities; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Fort Collins are best served by an informed and effective local
government; and
WHEREAS, the League Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals
and making recommendations to the League Executive Board; and
WHEREAS, the Policy Committee proposes to the League membership revisions to the
League’s policies which guide League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to have maximum representation on the
Policy Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and City Manager Darin Atteberry are hereby
appointed to represent the City on the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th
day of August A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25A
SUBJECT
Reconsideration of a Motion Adopted by Council at a Special Meeting Held on Thursday, August 11, 2011, Expressing
the City’s Objections to Construction on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission
Line Project and Authorizing the City Attorney to Seek a Court Order Enjoining Construction of Phase III, if Necessary,
or To Take Such Other Appropriate Legal Action As May Be Needed to Protect the Interests of the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item relates to a power transmission line project planned for construction by Platte River Power Authority (Platte
River) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) in the City’s Pineridge Natural Area. Although Platte River
obtained an easement from the City in 2006 to cross the City’s Colina Mariposa Natural Area with underground lines
in an earlier phase of this project, detailed information regarding the last phase of the project (Phase III) as it crosses
Pineridge Natural Area has not been presented to or reviewed by the City.
Efforts by the City in recent months to seek a delay in the project to allow time for discussion of impacts to the City’s
Natural Area have not been successful. Areas for further discussion include alternative routes, potential impacts,
access routes, mitigation, possible undergrounding, and other similar concerns. Issues have been raised regarding
whether the 1951 easements obtained by WAPA for its original transmission line are sufficient for the project proposed,
whether temporary construction easements are needed for the project, and whether the environmental review
completed by WAPA has sufficiently identified and analyzed the impacts of the proposed project.
Platte River representatives have indicated that the final phase of the project will begin in September, although the
work planned to take place on Pineridge Natural Area may not begin until several weeks later, perhaps as late as
November. However, at this time the City has no assurance that any further consideration of the issues raised by the
City will take place before work proceeds on the City’s property.
At its special meeting on Thursday, August 11, 2011, the City Council adopted a motion by a vote of 6 to 0, finding that
postponing Council action regarding the City’s Objections to Construction of Phase III of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe
Transmission Line Project would be contrary to the public interest. This finding met the requirement of City Code
Section 2-32(d), in order for the Council to take up an item that was not specifically identified as an action item on the
Council’s agenda.
The City Council then adopted by a vote of 6 to 0 a motion directing the City Manager and City Attorney to formally
express to Western Area Power Administration, Platte River Power Authority and the City’s member-partners in Platte
River, the City’s objections to construction proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station
Transmission Line Project, and authorizing the City Attorney to seek a court order enjoining construction of Phase III,
if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action as may be needed to protect the interests of the City.
Although the requirement for action without advance notice was met, Council leadership has asked the City Manager
to bring this item forward for reconsideration on the August 16, 2011, agenda in order to allow a better opportunity for
public input on this matter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends reconsideration of the Motion.
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26
SUBJECT
Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional
Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits.
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance that Would Prohibit the Operation of Medical
Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-infused Product
Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits. (No Action Needed)
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2011, an Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation of Medical
Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-infused Product
Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits. (Option 1)
OR
Resolution 2011-070 Submitting a Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation of Medical
Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-infused Product
Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on
November 1, 2011, In Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election. (Option 2)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on July 19, 2011, which has been determined to contain a
sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered electors of the City at a special
election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk,
the Council must either (1) adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days (Option 1); or (2) submit
such proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city (Option 2). If the Council
chooses to submit the proposed measure to the voters, Resolution 2011-070 would submit the measure and establish
the ballot language for the measure.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition received on July 19, 2011.
Under Article X of the City Charter, 4,214 signatures of registered electors (at least 15% of the total ballots cast in the
last regular City election) are required to place an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an
initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance
without alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. In
anticipation of receiving this petition, a special election has been called for November 1, 2011, in conjunction with the
Larimer County Coordinated Election.
The purpose of the initiated measure is to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional premises
cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing within the City of Fort Collins corporate
limits. The text of the proposed ordinance is as follows:
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 27
AN INITIATED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA CENTERS, OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS, AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, the voters of the state of Colorado approved Amendment 20, which
added § 14 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution and created a limited exception from criminal liability
under Colorado law (as opposed to Federal law) for seriously ill persons who are in need of marijuana for
specified purposes and who obtain and use medicinal marijuana under the limited, specified circumstances
described in Amendment 20; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 20 contains specific definitions for the terms “Patient”, “Physician” and “Primary
Care-giver” and confers specific protections upon and exemptions from criminal prosecution to persons who
meet the requirements of each such defined term provided that all the provisions of Amendment 20 are
complied with; and
WHEREAS the citizens of the City of Fort Collins recognize the protection for the medical use of marijuana
by persons diagnosed with debilitating medical conditions afforded by Article XVIII, Section 14 of the
Colorado Constitution, and desire to affirm the ability of such patients and their primary caregivers to otherwise
be afforded the protections of Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §25-1.5-106,
as the same may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Legislature during the 2010 legislative session considered House Bill 10-1284
and adopted legislation which in pertinent part added a new Article 43.3 to Title 12 of the Colorado Revised
Statues, to be known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code clarifies Colorado law regarding the scope and extent
of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (“Article XVIII, Section 14”), and at the same time regulates
the retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana known as a “Medical Marijuana
Center,” and further authorizes licensing mechanisms known as an “Optional Premises Cultivation Operation”
and a “Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers’ License,” and furthermore defines the following:
A) Medical Marijuana Center. As used within this Code, a Medical Marijuana Center is given the
identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(8).
B) Optional Premises Cultivation Operation. As used within this Code, an Optional Premises
Cultivation Operation is given the identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised Statute
§ 12-43.3-104(12).
C) Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer. As used within this Code, a Medical
Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer is given the identical meaning as that defined in
Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(10).
WHEREAS, § 12-43.3-106, C.R.S., provides that the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code shall have
statewide effect unless a municipality, county, city, or city and county, by either a majority of the registered
electors of the municipality, county, city, or city and county voting at a regular election or special election
called in accordance with the "Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965", Article 10 of Title 31, C.R.S., or
the “Uniform Election Code of 1992", Articles 1 to 13 of Title 1, C.R.S., as applicable, or a majority of the
members of the governing board for the municipality, county, city, or city and county, vote to prohibit the
operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-
Infused Products Manufacturers' Licenses; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 12-43.3-310 of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code further specifically authorizes
a municipality in part “to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation
operations, and medical marijuana-infused products manufacturers’ licenses … based on local government
zoning, health, safety, and public welfare laws for the distribution of medical marijuana that are more restrictive
than this article;” and
August 16, 2011 -3- ITEM 27
WHEREAS, there are citizens of the City of Fort Collins, who protest and object to the operation of
Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused
Products Manufacturers’ Licenses within the City of Fort Collin’s Corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, Section 1(9), Article V, of the Constitution of Colorado provide that the initiative powers are
reserved to the registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to all local, special, and municipal
legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Article 11, Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes sets forth the procedures for exercising
the initiative power reserved for municipal electors; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City Council of the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt this Initiated Ordinance in the form presented herein to prohibit the
operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-
Infused Product Manufacturing within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits or, if the within Initiated
Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance
be referred in the form presented herein to the registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special
election to be scheduled as provided by law.
If any provision or provisions of this initiated ordinance shall be held to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable
or in conflict with the law, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any
way be affected or impaired thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article 43.3 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City of Fort Collins
hereby prohibits the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations and
Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing, effective ten (10) days following publication of the within
Ordinance as provided in Section 4.9 (B) of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Fort Collins. With respect
to any such Centers, Operations, facilities or businesses of any kind in operation upon such effective date, each
and every such Center, Operation, facility and business shall cease operations within ninety (90) days of said
date.
Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the City
at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors voted in favor of this
Initiated Ordinance at such regular or special election. In such event, each and every Medical Marijuana
Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing
in operation on such effective date shall cease operations within ninety (90) days of the effective date specified
in this Section 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council choose either Option 1 (adoption of the Ordinance without alternation) or Option 2
(submitting the proposed measure to the voters).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Petition certification
OPTION 1
ORDINANCE NO. 110, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AN INITIATED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA CENTERS, OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS,
AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING
WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, the voters of the state of Colorado approved Amendment
20, which added § 14 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution and created a limited exception
from criminal liability under Colorado law (as opposed to Federal law) for seriously ill persons who
are in need of marijuana for specified purposes and who obtain and use medicinal marijuana under
the limited, specified circumstances described in Amendment 20; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 20 contains specific definitions for the terms “Patient”,
“Physician” and “Primary Care-giver” and confers specific protections upon and exemptions from
criminal prosecution to persons who meet the requirements of each such defined term provided that
all the provisions of Amendment 20 are complied with; and
WHEREAS the citizens of the City of Fort Collins recognize the protection for the medical
use of marijuana by persons diagnosed with debilitating medical conditions afforded by Article
XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution, and desire to affirm the ability of such patients and
their primary caregivers to otherwise be afforded the protections of Article XVIII, Section 14 of the
Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §25-1.5-106, as the same may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Legislature during the 2010 legislative session considered House
Bill 10-1284 and adopted legislation which in pertinent part added a new Article 43.3 to Title 12 of
the Colorado Revised Statues, to be known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code clarifies Colorado law regarding the
scope and extent of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (“Article XVIII, Section 14”), and
at the same time regulates the retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing of medical
marijuana known as a “Medical Marijuana Center,” and further authorizes licensing mechanisms
known as an “Optional Premises Cultivation Operation” and a “Medical Marijuana-Infused Products
Manufacturers’ License,” and furthermore defines the following:
A) Medical Marijuana Center. As used within this Code, a Medical Marijuana
Center is given the identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised
Statute § 12-43.3-104(8).
B) Optional Premises Cultivation Operation. As used within this Code, an
Optional Premises Cultivation Operation is given the identical meaning as
that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(12).
C) Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer. As used within this
Code, a Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer is given the
identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-
104(10).
WHEREAS, § 12-43.3-106, C.R.S., provides that the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code
shall have statewide effect unless a municipality, county, city, or city and county, by either a
majority of the registered electors of the municipality, county, city, or city and county voting at a
regular election or special election called in accordance with the "Colorado Municipal Election Code
of 1965", Article 10 of Title 31, C.R.S., or the “Uniform Election Code of 1992", Articles 1 to 13
of Title 1, C.R.S., as applicable, or a majority of the members of the governing board for the
municipality, county, city, or city and county, vote to prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana
Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused Products
Manufacturers' Licenses; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 12-43.3-310 of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code further
specifically authorizes a municipality in part “to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana
centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused products
manufacturers’ licenses … based on local government zoning, health, safety, and public welfare
laws for the distribution of medical marijuana that are more restrictive than this article;” and
WHEREAS, there are citizens of the City of Fort Collins, who protest and object to the
operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical
Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers’ Licenses within the City of Fort Collin’s Corporate
limits; and
WHEREAS, Section 1(9), Article V, of the Constitution of Colorado provide that the
initiative powers are reserved to the registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to
all local, special, and municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Article 11, Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes sets forth the procedures
for exercising the initiative power reserved for municipal electors; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City
Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt this Initiated Ordinance in the form presented
herein to prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation
Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits or, if the within Initiated Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form
presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance be referred in the form presented herein to the
registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election to be scheduled as provided
by law.
If any provision or provisions of this initiated ordinance shall be held to be invalid, illegal,
unenforceable or in conflict with the law, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article 43.3 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City
of Fort Collins hereby prohibits the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises
Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing, effective ten (10)
days following publication of the within Ordinance as provided in Section 4.9 (B) of the Home Rule
Charter of the City of Fort Collins. With respect to any such Centers, Operations, facilities or
businesses of any kind in operation upon such effective date, each and every such Center, Operation,
facility and business shall cease operations within ninety (90) days of said date.
Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance to the registered
electors of the City at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered
electors voted in favor of this Initiated Ordinance at such regular or special election. In such event,
each and every Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations and Medical
Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing in operation on such effective date shall cease operations
within ninety (90) days of the effective date specified in this Section 2.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
OPTION 2
RESOLUTION 2011-070
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SUBMITTING A CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCE
TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS,
OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS, AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING
WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CORPORATE LIMITS AT A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2011,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY COORDINATED ELECTION
WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 1 of the City Charter, the registered electors of the City
have the power to propose a measure to the City Council, and if the City Council fails to adopt a
measure so proposed, then to adopt or reject such ordinance or resolution at the polls; and
WHEREAS, an initiative petition to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing
within the City of Fort Collins corporate limits has been submitted to the City, and the City Clerk
has certified said petition as sufficient for submission of the initiated ordinance to a vote of the
people at a special municipal election; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has presented said petition to the City Council as provided in
Article X, Section 5(f)(4) of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 1(e) of the City Charter, upon presentation of an
initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the City Council must either adopt
the citizen-initiated ordinance without alteration within thirty (30) days or submit said citizen-
initiated ordinance in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the City; and
WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 6 of the City Charter, upon ordering an election on any
initiative or referendum measure, the Council shall, after public hearing, adopt by resolution a ballot
title and submission clause for the measure; and
WHEREAS, the ballot title for the measure must identify the measure as either a city
initiated or citizen initiated measure; and
WHEREAS the submission clause must be brief, must not conflict with those selected for
any petition previously filed for the same election, and must unambiguously state the principle of
the provision sought to be added.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at a special
municipal election to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election on
Tuesday, November 1, 2011, the following proposed citizen-initiated ordinance:
AN INITIATED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA CENTERS, OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS, AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, the voters of the state of Colorado approved Amendment
20, which added § 14 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution and created a limited exception
from criminal liability under Colorado law (as opposed to Federal law) for seriously ill persons who
are in need of marijuana for specified purposes and who obtain and use medicinal marijuana under the
limited, specified circumstances described in Amendment 20; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 20 contains specific definitions for the terms “Patient”, “Physician”
and “Primary Care-giver” and confers specific protections upon and exemptions from criminal
prosecution to persons who meet the requirements of each such defined term provided that all the
provisions of Amendment 20 are complied with; and
WHEREAS the citizens of the City of Fort Collins recognize the protection for the medical
use of marijuana by persons diagnosed with debilitating medical conditions afforded by Article XVIII,
Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution, and desire to affirm the ability of such patients and their
primary caregivers to otherwise be afforded the protections of Article XVIII, Section 14 of the
Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §25-1.5-106, as the same may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Legislature during the 2010 legislative session considered House
Bill 10-1284 and adopted legislation which in pertinent part added a new Article 43.3 to Title 12 of
the Colorado Revised Statues, to be known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code clarifies Colorado law regarding the
scope and extent of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (“Article XVIII, Section 14”), and
at the same time regulates the retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana
known as a “Medical Marijuana Center,” and further authorizes licensing mechanisms known as an
“Optional Premises Cultivation Operation” and a “Medical Marijuana-Infused Products
Manufacturers’ License,” and furthermore defines the following:
A) Medical Marijuana Center. As used within this Code, a Medical
Marijuana Center is given the identical meaning as that defined in
Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(8).
B) Optional Premises Cultivation Operation. As used within this Code, an
Optional Premises Cultivation Operation is given the identical meaning as
that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(12).
C) Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer. As used within this
Code, a Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer is given the
identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-
104(10).
WHEREAS, § 12-43.3-106, C.R.S., provides that the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code
shall have statewide effect unless a municipality, county, city, or city and county, by either a majority
of the registered electors of the municipality, county, city, or city and county voting at a regular
election or special election called in accordance with the "Colorado Municipal Election Code of
1965", Article 10 of Title 31, C.R.S., or the “Uniform Election Code of 1992", Articles 1 to 13 of Title
1, C.R.S., as applicable, or a majority of the members of the governing board for the municipality,
county, city, or city and county, vote to prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional
Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers' Licenses;
and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 12-43.3-310 of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code further
specifically authorizes a municipality in part “to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused products manufacturers’
licenses … based on local government zoning, health, safety, and public welfare laws for the
distribution of medical marijuana that are more restrictive than this article;” and
WHEREAS, there are citizens of the City of Fort Collins, who protest and object to the
operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical
Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers’ Licenses within the City of Fort Collin’s Corporate limits;
and
WHEREAS, Section 1(9), Article V, of the Constitution of Colorado provide that the
initiative powers are reserved to the registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to all
local, special, and municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalities;
and
WHEREAS, Article 11, Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes sets forth the procedures
for exercising the initiative power reserved for municipal electors; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City
Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt this Initiated Ordinance in the form presented
herein to prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation
Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits or, if the within Initiated Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form
presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance be referred in the form presented herein to the
registered electors of the municipality at a regular or special election to be scheduled as provided by
law.
If any provision or provisions of this initiated ordinance shall be held to be invalid, illegal,
unenforceable or in conflict with the law, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article 43.3 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the
City of Fort Collins hereby prohibits the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises
Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing, effective ten (10)
days following publication of the within Ordinance as provided in Section 4.9 (B) of the Home Rule
Charter of the City of Fort Collins. With respect to any such Centers, Operations, facilities or
businesses of any kind in operation upon such effective date, each and every such Center, Operation,
facility and business shall cease operations within ninety (90) days of said date.
Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance to the registered
electors of the City at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors
voted in favor of this Initiated Ordinance at such regular or special election. In such event, each and
every Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana
Infused Products Manufacturing in operation on such effective date shall cease operations within
ninety (90) days of the effective date specified in this Section 2.
Section 2. That the foregoing proposed citizen-initiated ordinance is hereby submitted
to the registered electors of the City at said regular municipal election in substantially the following
form:
PROPOSED CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCE
An ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation
operations, and medical marijuana infused products manufacturers from operating
within the City limits, effective ninety (90) days after the date that the City Clerk
certifies that a majority of registered electors in the City have voted in favor of this
ordinance.
FOR THE ORDINANCE _____
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE _____
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th
day of August, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed Amended
CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP). The Board considered testimony from
the applicant, the public and staff. The Amended ODP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA and Hillpond
on Spring Creek have appealed the Board’s decisions. The allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board did
not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for an Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall
Development Plan. The purpose of the Amended ODP is to realign the proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street
connection through Parcel C between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street; and, to eliminate the proposed future
Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C to Gilgalad Way in the Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north.
The properties contained on the ODP are, cumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN - Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and E - Employment Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and
conclusions as stated on page 6 of the Staff Report for the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced
Technology, Overall Development Plan:
A. The ODP complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(D)(1 - 8).
B. The re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Master Street Plan and
preserves existing wetlands.
C. The elimination of the connection between Northerland Drive and Rolland Moore Drive will not impact
this neighborhood in a detrimental way because ample existing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
connections are provided via the local street network and trails in the area; and wetlands are preserved
by the elimination of this connection.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted to approve
the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA
(c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526); and, Hillpond on
Spring Creek (c/o Gail Dethloff, Board President of the HOA, 1937 Wallenberg Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526).
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of the Amended ODP failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 27
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 2.3.2(H)(7), 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 in relation to allocation of
allowable secondary use in the Employment District.
Part I-A of the Resident Report discusses how the Amended ODP provides the means for increasing the proportion
of Employment District in the Centre for Advanced Technology developed for non-employment, secondary uses
beyond the limits set by the Land Use Code. Section 2.3.2(H)(7) requires mix of uses to be applied to the entire overall
development plan, which allows any future PDP to exceed the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment District
by borrowing secondary use acreage from other parcels. The Board misinterpreted Section 2.3.2(H)(7) in that it did
not require an accounting of previous secondary uses within the Centre for Advanced Technology be included in the
Amended ODP to indicate how much secondary use has been used in this manner since establishment of the
Employment District zone. The 18.1 acre Horticulture Center and the 1.5 acre CSU Ropes Course used approximately
14.6 more acres of Employment District for secondary uses than would have been allowed by Section 4.27(D)(2).
There may be several other instances of secondary use in the Employment District of the Centre for Advanced
Technology since the establishment of zoning after the 1999 ODP.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the status of the Ropes Course as a community facility; it is publicly
owned and intended to serve recreational, educational, cultural and entertainment needs of the community as a whole.
It is a secured, fee-for-use public facility. It is not open recreational space. It is an Employment District secondary use
in Parcel D of the Amended ODP.
The Board misinterpreted Section 4.27(D)(2) as it applies to an overall development plan by allowing Note 2 of the
Amended ODP to set a condition whereby any development in Parcels D and E, which are in the Employment Zone
and the FEMA floodway, will not be counted against the 25% secondary use allowance provided by their 52.3 acres
(a total of 13.07 acres). Future secondary uses in Parcels D and E would never be debited against that allowance,
which could result in 13.07 acres more than 25% of the Amended ODP Employment District being developed for
secondary, non-employment uses. Note 2 should be struck from the Amended ODP and language from Note 2 of the
2003 ODP should not be carried forward.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the meaning of "development plan" in Section 4.27(D)(2) by
deciding that issues related to the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment District are not applicable to an
overall development plan. Section 4.27(D)(2) applies to a "development plan", which Section 5.1.2 defines as an
overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final development plan. When considering an ODP in
relation to 4.27.(D)(2), the "development plan" is the ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The total amount of area on both the CSURFCentre for Advanced Technology ODP (approved by the Planning &
Zoning Board on 2/20/2003 and recorded) and the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology ODP (approved
by the P&Z Board on 6/16/2011) is 116.7 acres. The amount of area within the E, Employment District on both ODP’s
is 96.5 acres. The amount of area within the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District on both ODP’s,
completely within Parcel C, is 20.2 acres. The Gardens on Spring Creek facility is not included within the boundaries
of either ODP containing Parcels A thru F. Therefore, it is not counted against the allowable land uses on the ODP’s.
During its development review process in 2003 the CSU Ropes Course (Parcel D) was, in fact, determined to be a
Community Facility in the E District. Community facilities are Secondary Uses in that district. The total amount of
secondary uses in the E District currently existing or proposed is 18.5 acres (9.1 acres in Parcel C and 9.4 acres in
Parcel D), which is 19.2% of the total of 96.5 acres in the E District.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 5.1.2 regarding Floor Area Ratio.
The Amended ODP deletes Note 5 from the 2003 ODP which states, "Maximum Floor Area Ratio (building square
footage divided by land area square footage) for all parcels not to exceed .37." LUC Section 5.1.2 defines Floor Area
Ratio as the gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block by the total area of such lot, or the block size.
This definition does not mention parcels and is clearly intended to be applied to lots and blocks at the detailed level
of a PDP. The FAR note in the 2003 ODP was intended to apply a maximum Floor Area Ratio to the lots and blocks
of any future PDP that might have been proposed for any parcel within the ODP. The Board misinterpreted both Note
5 and Section 5.1.2 when it accepted the Applicant's FAR calculation using the total area of buildings in the PDP
divided by the total parcel square footage.
August 16, 2011 -3- ITEM 27
(The Resident Report contains a typographical error on page 1-7, where the LUC citation is written as Section 5.2.
Definitions are in Section 5.1.2.)
The Board misinterpreted the general purpose and intent of the LUC when it decided that since FAR is not used as
a planning tool in the LUC, it was not part of the LUC and therefore could simply be removed during amendment of
the Centre of Advanced Technology ODP. The FAR note was attached to and approved with the 2003 ODP. This
made it the standard for the development of the Centre for Advanced Technology in accordance with the LUC. FAR
is defined in the LUC 5.1.2. and therefore is indeed part of the LUC. FAR is not regulated by LUC, but that is irrelevant
to upholding this limitation that was instituted by the 2003 ODP. There should be a very compelling reason to remove
prior protections that presumably were placed as an approved condition and promise to the community for how future
development would take place.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff’s response to Planning & Zoning Board’s questions at the public hearing was that Floor Area Ratio is not a
criterion that must be applied or complied with for evaluation of an Overall Development Plan, per Section 2.3.2(H)
of the Land Use Code. However, at the Board Public Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed not to remove
the FAR-related note as shown on the February 20, 2003 ODP.
c. Improper interpretation of LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding land uses in the Spring Creek lOO-year floodplain.
The 2003 Centre for Advanced Technology ODP did not allow secondary uses in an Employment District in the
floodplain, but the Amended ODP does allow such development. Note 3 of the 2003 ODP states: "Land uses proposed
within the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain shall not be considered secondary uses." As noted on page 1-8 of the
Resident Report, City Staff determined in 2009 that this note does not allow residential construction in the floodplain.
The Amended ODP allows such development by the simple expedient of deleting this note. Prohibition of residential
construction as a secondary use in the Employment District in the Spring Creek floodplain reduces risk to the lives and
property of neighboring landowners, potential tenants and first responders. When approving the Amended ODP, the
Board misinterpreted LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding the protection of life and property in the matter of floodwaters by allowing
removal of the protection afforded by Note 3 of the 2003 ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
At the Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed to retain General Notes 2 &
3 as shown on the February 20, 2003 ODP, this in lieu of the proposed new General Note 2 on the Amended ODP.
This note relates to allowance or prohibition of potential Secondary Uses in the floodway or floodplain, primarily in
Parcels D and E of the ODP.
d. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the basis for classification and granting of
administrative variances for the design of Rolland Moore Drive as a Minor Collector.
When approving the ODP, the Board accepted administrative variances that downgraded the street design of Rolland
Moore Drive relative to its classification. In doing so, the Board misinterpreted LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the permitted
uses and standards for zoned districts in overall development plans. Commercial offices and shops are permitted use
in the MMN District according to LUC 4.6(B)(3)(c)(2). The June 2002 Transportation Impact Study for Parcel C of the
Centre for Advanced Technology found that commercial office use of the MMN area of Parcel C, along with similar
permitted uses in the Employment District would generate 5,735 daily trips, thereby causing Rolland Moore Drive to
be classified as a Collector. The Board improperly assumed that since residential uses are permitted in the MMN
District, residential levels of traffic could be used to calculate daily trips for the classification and design of Rolland
Moore Drive. However, the Amended ODP does not rezone or limit development of any permitted use in the MMN
District in Parcel C. As noted on page 1-11 of the Resident Report, the Amended ODP must be able to stand on its
own merit for the maximum allowable development. Rolland Moore Drive should meet the standards for a Collector
street capable of handling the number of daily trips identified for the complete complement of permitted uses.
August 16, 2011 -4- ITEM 27
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The basis for a street classification is determined from how the street may function, what volume of traffic is expected
to use the roadway, safety considerations and context-sensitive design to support the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rolland Moore Drive continues to be designated as a collector street on the Master Street Plan and staff expects it
to function as a Collector street as the surrounding land is developed. The Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS) does allow the City Engineer to approve variances to the street design standards. Several
variances have been approved related to the street geometry (i.e., centerline radii and minimum tangent between
curves) and reducing the travel lane width from 11 feet to 10 feet. The variances are viewed as acceptable with the
planned posted speed limit of 25 mph which is also viewed as commensurate with the developing residential land use
in the area. City staff from Engineering, Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, and Community Development
and Neighborhood Services reviewed and support the variances.
The approved variances do not change the collector-level classification or street cross-section of Rolland Moore Drive.
City staff has determined that the variances ensure that the design of Rolland Moore Drive will match the context of
the surrounding land uses. Rolland Moore Drive as planned and designed is expected to accommodate existing and
projected traffic volumes based on adjacent zoning, as well as provide needed connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians,
and cyclists.
e. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H)(1) by approval of a conceptual alignment for Rolland Moore
Drive that does not comply in general with LCUASS standards for its classification.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} regarding the general development standards that can be applied at the
level of detail required for an overall development plan. The conceptual alignment in the 2003 ODP was selected as
the most compliant option consistent with LCUASS standards for a Collector Street. The conceptual alignment in the
Amended ODP appears to be generally out of compliance with LCUASS. The alignment shows curve radii and arc
lengths that would be substandard for the street classification according LCUASS for a Minor Collector Street, let alone
for a Collector Street. The intersection with Centre Avenue would not comply with LCUASS even for less stringent
Connector Local criteria. Previous City considerations for Rolland Moore Drive placed safety first, as quoted on page
1-10 of the Resident Report. Conceptual roadway alignments should be generally in compliance with LCUASS
standards so that any future PDP roadways can be developed within the detailed traffic safety standards.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} is that it would not apply to a street alignment shown on an ODP. However,
LUC 2.3.2{H}{3} states that an ODP must conform to the Master Street Plan (MSP), not the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards. Rolland Moore Drive was added to the Master Street Plan in 2000 to serve as a vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian connection from Shields Street to Center Avenue. The goal is to provide connectivity to and
from surrounding neighborhoods and employment centers. The MSP is a planning-level document and does not
include engineering design.
In 2006, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated the flood maps for this area. The 2000
alignment would now be located in a FEMA floodplain and flood fringe, as well as impact wetlands. City staff
supported the request to relocate Rolland Moore Drive to the location shown on the amended ODP to remove the
environmental impacts. This included removing a planned connection to Northerland Drive.
City staff considered possible alternative alignments, including removing the connection from the MSP. The preferred
alternative will maintain Rolland Moore Drive as a collector street and utilize the existing Natural Resources Research
Council (NRRC) driveway intersection with Center Avenue to avoid multiple off-set intersections along this corridor
that could impact safety. Additionally, this intersection will become an important entrance to the Colorado State
University Veterinary Medicine Campus in the future. The amended alignment will still conform to the MSP as it meets
the original intent to provide a collector-level connection between Shields Street and Center Avenue.
f. Improper interpretation of LUC 3.6.2{A} regarding relationship of streets to topography
The general alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP is shown crossing topography with a very steep
cross slope. This will force any future PDP to implement unwarranted engineered cuts into the hillside below the
Larimer Canal No. 2 that would otherwise not be necessary if the roadway bore a logical relationship to the existing
topography.
August 16, 2011 -5- ITEM 27
STAFF ANALYSIS:
LUC 3.6.2{A} requires streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat to conform to the Master Street Plan,
to be aligned to join with planned or existing streets, and be designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography
of the land. This standard would not apply to an ODP.
The amended Rolland Moore Drive alignment complies with the Master Street Plan and provides connections to
adjacent streets, with the exception of Northerland Drive. City staff has not supported street or trail crossings of the
Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of Northerland Drive due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors,
existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development
and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning
reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well
or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic
without exceeding level of service standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the
Larimer Canal No. 2.
g. LUC 1.2.2{E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water hazards
The Amended ODP shows Rolland Moore Drive in an alignment that requires deep cuts into the hillside below Larimer
Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood event. The Board set as a Condition of
Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By
allowing excavation of the hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of
LUC 1.2.2{E} and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to relocation
unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing slope of the existing
Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates
the potential for risk to life, health and safety of properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
h. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 3.6.3{F) regarding connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes development of
connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal No.2 that any street or alternative
transportation way would need extensive grading and construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have
a substantial impact on its function as a wildlife corridor. Other feasible alignments not presented in the Amended ODP,
but sketched in the illustrations following page 1-10 of the Resident Report, could reduce the disruption needed to build
connections to the south. Examples of streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and wildlife corridors throughout
the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3{F} which requires Alternative Compliance for connectivity to be
equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff has not supported street or trail crossings of the Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of Northerland Drive
due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the availability of
alternative routes. City staff from Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning,
Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found
that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The
Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent trails,
sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding level of service standards, and
eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter?
August 16, 2011 -6- ITEM 27
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan
and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and
associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and
other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation
(streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and
emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of
flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes
of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the
mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
2. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) & (7) Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
An overall development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions
contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections
2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall comply with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone
district standards (Article 4) of all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the overall
development plan. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district standards (Article 4) and
general development standards (Article 3) that can be applied at the level of detail required for an
overall development plan submittal. If the overall development plan contains any land within the
M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size requirements for
those districts.
August 16, 2011 -7- ITEM 27
(7) Any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire overall
development plan, not on each individual project development plan review.
3. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall not be approved for
development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met:
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction
Standards.
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as established in Chapter
10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or
drainageways have been approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other water channel,
necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property, and additional
measures such as fencing, water depth indicators and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the
extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an elevation such that
basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer to occur) shall not be platted for
building lots with basements unless adequate provisions to prevent groundwater from entering
basements have been designed and approved by the City Engineer.
4. Section 3.6.2(A) Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
(A) Streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the Master Street Plan where
applicable. All streets shall be aligned to join with planned or existing streets. All streets shall be
designed to bear a logical relationship to the topography of the land. Intersections of streets shall be
at right angles unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.6.3(F) Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments
and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets
stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing
development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent
developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred
sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or
redevelopable land.
6. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall
be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use
in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone
district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of
the development plan.
(a) Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics.
(b) Clubs and lodges.
August 16, 2011 -8- ITEM 27
(c) Child care centers.
(d) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are stacked above
a primary use which occupies the ground floor).
(e) Standard and fast food restaurants.
(f) Lodging establishments.
(g) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(h) Funeral homes.
(i) Health and membership clubs.
(j) Convenience shopping centers.
(k) Convention and conference center.
(l) Food catering.
(m) Public facilities.
(n) Community facilities.
(o) Bars and taverns.
(p) Plant nurseries and greenhouses.
(q) Dog day-care facilities.
(r) Print shops.
(s) Workshops and custom small industry uses.
(t) Artisan and photography studios and galleries.
(u) Limited indoor recreation establishments.
(v) Enclosed mini-storage facilities.
(w) Places of worship or assembly.
(x) Personal and business service shops.
7. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a permitted use which depicts
the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project
development plan and/or a final plan.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall mean the amount of gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block,
as the case may be, divided by the total area of such lot, or the block size, respectively, on which such
buildings are located. For mixed-use blocks, the residential square footage shall be added to the commercial
development for a total block FAR.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after
consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Notice of Appeal, dated June 29, 2011
- Resident Report
- Documents submitted at the Planning and Zoning Hearing by Citizens, June 16, 2011
3. Staff Report (with attachments) to Planning and Zoning Board, dated June 16, 2011, for the Amended CSURF
Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan (#MJA11001)
4. Additional documentation for Staff Report submitted by the applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board at the
June 16, 2011 Hearing
5. Documents submitted by various speakers to the Planning and Zoning Board at the June 16, 2011 Hearing.
6. Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, June 16, 2011
7. Miscellaneous Documents Submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Hearing
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to approve The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the proposed The Grove
at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and
staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring
Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the Board’s decision. The
allegation is that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code
and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for a private multi-family residential project known as The Grove at Fort
Collins, Project Development Plan. It is a proposed student housing project containing 210 dwelling units in 11
residential buildings plus 8 dwelling units in a mixed-use dwelling (clubhouse) building. The site is located at the
southwest corner of Centre Avenue and existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring Creek,
in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be realigned onto the southerly portion of the
subject property and extended east, from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street,
to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer Canal No. 2.
There would be 403 parking spaces on-site and 96 parallel parking spaces on the proposed Public Local Street.
Additionally, there would be 128 parallel parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive and the proposed Public Commercial
Street within the property. The property is 27.5 gross acres in size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood and E, Employment Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following findings of fact and
conclusions as stated on pages 21, 22 and 23 of the Staff Report for The Grove at Fort Collins, Project
Development Plan:
A. The PDP is in conformance with the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP.
B. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District.
C. The proposed land use is permitted in the E, Employment District as a Secondary use.
D. The proposal complies with the requirement set forth in Section 3.3.3(A)(4) in that all measures proposed
to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or drainageways have been reviewed
and approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
E. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards, with the
following exception:
- Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels. This section requires that development plans provide for
future public street connections to adjacent developable or redevelopable lands at intervals not to
exceed 660 feet.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 28
The applicant submitted an Alternative Compliance Plan request that does not include street connections
to adjacent properties to the north or the south due to existing wetlands and the Larimer Canal No. 2
posing obstacles to possible connections. The request is to be considered by the Planning & Zoning
Board based on criteria set forth in Section 3.6.3(H) Alternative Compliance. Staff finds that the
Alternative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(F) equally well or better than
a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles
maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum extent feasible for the following
reasons:
• The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within
the Amended ODP. The pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access parks, recreational
opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section.
• The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without
exceeding Level of Service (LOS) standards.
• Lastly, the Alternative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high quality wetlands, avoids
constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway and avoids negative
impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the
Larimer Canal No. 2.
F. The Project Development Plan satisfies Section 3.8.16(E)(2) in that the applicable criteria of the Land Use
Code have been satisfied and that the project provides adequate open space and recreational
opportunities with a large clubhouse facility, pool complex, basketball court, volleyball court, parking areas
and public facilities as necessary to support the proposed 18 4-bedroom units and protect the occupants
of the development and the adjacent neighborhoods.
G. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.6 MMN,
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use Code.
• It is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features set forth in
Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development.
H. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4, Division 4.27 E,
Employment District of the Land Use Code.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA,
Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes
HOA: c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526.
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 with regard to integration of secondary
uses into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses.
The Grove PDP includes no primary uses in the Employment District, a violation of the first sentence of LUC
4.27(D)(2). When considering whether or not The Grove PDP integrated secondary uses into a larger employment
district development plan (Resident Report, page ll-12), the Board misinterpreted "development plan" in Section
4.27(D)(2) as applicable only to the Amended ODP, and not to The Grove PDP. A "development plan" as defined in
LUC Section 5.1.2 includes an overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final plan. When a PDP
is under consideration, the "development plan" referenced in 4.27(D)(2) is the PDP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The first sentence in Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses of the E, Employment District reads as such:
“All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment
district development plan that emphasizes primary uses”.
August 16, 2011 -3- ITEM 28
Approximately 9 acres of the total of 27.5 gross acres on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP are in the E District. The
development is almost entirely multi-family residential, with 20 – 25 of the total of 218 dwelling units being in the E
District. There remains about 4 acres in Parcel C within the E District that may still be developed for primary, non-
residential uses.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a) with regard to mix of housing types in the MMN
District.
The Grove PDP provides only one housing type in the MMN District. The Board misinterpreted Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a)
by considering the swimming pool pavilion a second housing type. The pavilion is a small accessory building
associated with the outdoor recreational facilities near the Clubhouse, which, as described on page 11-13 of the
Resident Report, is a mixed-use residence located in the Employment District at a considerable distance (beyond 50
feet) across the boundary of the MMN District.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011:
“The development plan satisfies Section 4.6(D)(2)(a) Mix of Housing Types in that there are to be 2
housing types (multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings) in The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP.”
Staff considers the clubhouse building to be a mixed-use dwelling unit, which is identified as a housing type as set forth
in Section 4.6(D)(2)(c). There is no mention of the swimming pool pavilion being considered a second housing type.
Common practice for City staff is to consider the entirety of a development plan in determining the mix of housing
types.
c. Improper interpretation of Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for a Minor
Collector.
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS standards which would be applicable to Rolland Moore Drive as designed in
The Grove PDP. Multiple instances of noncompliance with LCUASS were cited during the June 16, 2011 hearing from
a letter from James R. Loonan, a qualified professional engineer, including insufficient centerline curve radii;
undersized arc lengths; lack of horizontal tangent and sight distance easement at the intersection of Rolland Moore
Drive and Centre Avenue; and insufficient corner sight distance at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and the
Local Public Street. The technical details can be found in Mr. Loonan's letter which follows page 1-11 of the Resident
Report. City Staff granted a variance request to use a 30 mph Connector Local design criteria for the centerline radii,
minimum tangent between curves, and posted speed of 25 mph versus a 40 mph Collector design. The minimum
tangent length for a 30 mph Connector street is 100 feet, but there is zero tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore
Drive and Centre Avenue. The design of Rolland Moore Drive does not meet LCUASS Section 8.2.4.A for a 30 mph
Connector street nor does it meet the approved variances.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The appellants cited a letter from James R. Loonan which was presented at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
The majority of Mr. Loonan’s letter focuses on the design for Rolland Moore Drive and how aspects of the design
Rolland Moore Drive do not meet collector standards. Variances to several Collector Street design parameters have
been granted to bring the geometry of the design of Rolland Moore Drive closer to a connector than a collector.
City staff (which included staff from Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, Engineering, and Community
Development and Neighborhood Services) discussed the proposed variance requests and viewed that the roadway
geometry design for Rolland Moore Drive proposed by Northern Engineering would be acceptable. This was
documented in the variance request response letter from Sheri Langenberger dated January 28, 2011 to Nick Haws
with Northern Engineering Services.
Beyond Mr. Loonan’s letter, the appellants more specifically cite both a sight distance easement requirement and the
lack of a tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. With regards to a requirement for a
sight distance easement, this reflects an evaluation at to whether a view corridor needs to be preserved when stopped
on eastbound Rolland Moore Drive at the Centre Avenue intersection looking south along Centre Avenue. There is
a potential that a sight distance easement would be required to preserve a view corridor, though final determination
August 16, 2011 -4- ITEM 28
of the amount of impact (if any) cannot be assessed until additional vertical design information is provided
commensurate with a final plan submittal. As CSURF is the underlying owner of both The Grove at Fort Collins and
the offsite property that would be impacted by a sight distance easement, CSURF has indicated that they would not
object to a sight distance easement on the offsite property should it be determined that it is required during the course
of a final plan review. CSURF’s indication of no objection to the granting of a sight distance easement satisfies the
“Letters of Intent” requirement as part of the City’s “Submittal Requirements: Project Development Plan (PDP)”, step
3 of 8 in the Development Review Guide.
The lack of a tangent at a public street intersection is not necessarily viewed as being non-compliant with LCUASS.
A curve rather than a tangent can be brought to an intersection provided that the resultant angle that the curve
intersects that intersection is still within 80 to 100 degrees (intersections do not necessarily need to intersect at 90
degrees or with a straight line, per 8.2.3 of LCUASS). An existing example of where a curve meets an intersection with
the resultant angle still falls within the criteria of 8.2.3 of LCUASS is northbound Lady Moon Drive as it intersects with
Harmony Road.
d. Further improper interpretations of Land Use Code with regard to multiple issues, as listed below.
Some issues that are of lesser scope than others are easily overlooked, but when considered as a
whole, the preponderance of evidence reveals a general pattern of noncompliance with the purpose
and intent of the Land Use Code.
I. LUC 3.5.1 Compatibility. with regard to (A) Purpose. (B) Architectural Character. (C) Building Size. Height.
Bulk. Mass. Scale. (E) Building Materials. (F) Color. (H) Transitions and (J) Operational/Physical
Compatibility)
The Board misinterpreted multiple provisions of LUC 3.5.1 with regard to compatibility of The Grove PDP with existing
neighboring development. The architectural character, size, bulk and scale of the buildings bear little contextual
relationship to existing adjacent neighborhoods. Structural transitions are not provided, and although they are at a
modest distance across a natural area, very large three-story buildings nearly 200 feet long are situated on a hillside
that rises above the neighboring one- and two-story townhouses and homes. Incompatibility of The Grove PDP with
existing development is discussed pages 11-1 through 11-6 of the Resident Report and illustrated by contrasting views
of the Applicant's computer model and recent photographs of the neighborhood context.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, the development plan satisfies the
criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1 by ensuring that the architectural character of the surrounding area is maintained by
using a site and building design that is compatible with the multi-family residential developments to the west (Windtrail
Park and Care Housing at Windtrail Park) and the Natural Resources Research Center to the east. The Grove at Fort
Collins, PDP contains buildings of no more than 3 stories in height clustered around a common, amenity area. The
proposed building materials consist of brick masonry and horizontal and vertical vinyl siding. With the exception of vinyl
siding the materials can be found on existing buildings in the area.
ii. LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) Increasing the Occupancy Limit
The Board misinterpreted the provisions that allow the occupancy limit to be increased above three unrelated
occupants. As explained on page 11-7 of the Resident Report, The Grove PDP includes 18 four-bedroom apartments.
The Grove PDP provides limited open space, some recreational areas, parking and public facilities for its tenants. The
quantity, quality and distribution do not meet the requirement that such facilities be additional and adequate to serve
the occupants and protect the adjacent neighborhoods from the impact of increased occupancy.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code permits exceeding the occupancy limit if the applicant has provided additional open space,
recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the
development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
August 16, 2011 -5- ITEM 28
iii. LUC 1.2.2(E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding water hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by avoiding inappropriate
development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate development of flood-prone areas are noted pages
11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain for two buildings and a public
street. The proposed fill narrows the floodplain at a critical location and will cause a rise that threatens low-lying
established neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for deep cuts near
Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a storm/flood event. The Board set as a
Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after
construction. By allowing excavation of the hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose
and intent of LUC 1.2.2(E) and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to
relocation unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Some of The Grove property is in a FEMA 100-year floodway and flood fringe. The applicant does not plan to modify
the floodway. The applicant has the legal right through Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code to fill the flood fringe without
analyzing how it might impact neighbors. This may push water onto existing neighbors, but is legally permissible by
City Code and Federal Code as an "allowable rise." As stated by Brian Varrella, Floodplain Administrator for the City:
"Chapter 10 of City Code allows any party to develop in the Spring Creek flood fringe and create up
to 6 inches of rise in the base flood elevation. The net result of this allowable rise by development is
to force flood water onto adjacent and upstream properties. City Code does not require any party
developing in the Spring Creek flood fringe to quantify their impact on others. "
The Spring Creek FEMA map will be revised late in the Spring of 2012. Much of the neighborhood to the south and
west of The Grove will be removed from the map of the 100-year floodway and flood fringe after that time. All affected
neighbors will be notified directly of changes to flood mapping on their property when FEMA gives the green light. The
green light should be given 6 months before the effective date and mailers will go out to everyone. Neighbors will have
4 to 5 months to plan for new maps and benefits anticipated from the process. Fort Collins has administered a 0.5-ft
rise floodway since 1979. This is a wider floodway than the current Federal minimum standard, but is the same
floodway required by the State of Colorado. Fort Collins is no more restrictive than the rest of the state in how
floodplain boundaries are drawn.
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing slope of the existing
Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates
the potential for risk to life, health and safety of properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
iv. LUC 3.4.1 Natural habitats
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(F)(2) which requires preservation of natural connections between natural habitats
and LUC 3.4.1(C) requiring integration of wildlife within the developed landscape. At present, wildlife travel freely
through the site between the Larimer Canal corridor and the Wetlands corridor, and through the adjacent
neighborhoods to and from the Spring Creek corridor. As discussed on page 11-17 of the Resident Report, The Grove
PDP includes a long iron fence to protect the wetlands from impact by the development. This fence, in addition to a
high retaining wall below the Larimer Canal will disrupt these connections. No other residential development in the
vicinity requires a fence to protect natural areas from the impact of intense use by residents.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(1)(1) and (2) requiring the design of projects in large natural habitats such as the
Spring Creek natural corridor to complement the visual context of the natural habitat and minimize the degradation
of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and the obstruction of scenic views to and from the
natural features within the site.
August 16, 2011 -6- ITEM 28
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Site Context.
The Grove project site contains an array of natural habitats and features, including the Larimer Canal No. 2 and
significant trees on the south side of the parcel, 4.97 acres of wetlands on the north side of the parcel, and 14 fox dens,
as of the most recent ecological survey of the parcel. According to the project’s Ecological Characterization Study
and staff observations, the species utilizing this corridor are predominately urbanized species (accustomed to human
disturbances and including, but not limited to, fox, deer, raccoons, songbirds, etc.).
Wildlife Movement and the Fence.
In a site with abundant natural features, tradeoffs are often required to ensure sensitive habitats are protected while
still allowing for urban-adapted species to move across a site. In this project, a fence has been required to protect the
wetlands from human encroachment, trash blowing into the site, and from pets trampling in the wetlands. Examples
of similar-scale projects where fences have been installed include North College Marketplace and Caribou Apartments;
in these sites, no evidence of human traffic, e.g., social trails, can be seen in the wetland area. However, in other areas
where fencing has not been required, e.g., Huntington Hills, social trails are evident adjacent to and even within
wetlands in some areas. In this project, given the allowance of pets within the apartments and varying buffer distances
around the wetlands, staff believes that a fence at the site will protect the wetlands from social trails, trash blowing into
the site, and domesticated animal use that otherwise might occur.
However, in May, discussions among staff, the applicant, and the neighbors brought to light concerns about how the
fence, while it would serve to protect the wetlands from encroachment, might also prohibit wildlife movement from the
northern ends of the parcel to the southern ends (and vice versa). Thus, staff met with wildlife biologists, including
representatives from the Division of Wildlife, the Natural Areas Department, and private consultants, to assess how
the fence could be modified to still allow for wildlife movement across the site. While several experts believed wildlife
will simply adapt to the development, e.g., go around it, others felt that some modifications to the project design would
increase wildlife movement across the site. Thus, the following design modifications were requested of the applicant
(and subsequently applied in the design):
• Modify the metal-picket fencing style proposed through the project by varying the height from 3’ to 6’ along
several key locations;
• Leave a 1’ gap in the pickets below the lower, horizontal cross brace approximately every 100’ to allow for fox
to move under the fence in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(b) and Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(I) of the Land Use
Code;
• Roughen the surface of the retaining wall on the south side of the project to allow fox to more easily scramble
up the retaining wall.
Each of these adjustments is intended to balance the need for internal and external site connections for wildlife and
humans, while limiting human and domesticated animal access into the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones and providing
increased, functional protection for wildlife species.
Visual Character.
A total of 7.16 acres of the project site is proposed to be dedicated as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, including
approximately 1,450 native trees, shrub, grass, and perennial species proposed. During the Planning and Zoning
Board hearing, Board Members commented on the improvements in architectural styles and green standards made
in the current submittal. The several design iterations that the applicant has worked with staff on has removed the need
for any wetland mitigation on the project and is protecting all but three significant trees (two which are in the roadway
design for Rolland Moore Drive and one of which has been deemed hazardous by the City Forester).
In regards to views, exterior, scenic views into the Spring Creek corridor are currently blocked by the site’s natural
topography and vegetation and the three subdivisions to the north of the project. Visibility into the Spring Creek corridor
is best provided on the northeast portion of the site through the Gardens on Spring Creek. In addition, all buildings
on the project are, at a minimum, over 600’ from Spring Creek.
From an internal viewing perspective, the site’s natural features, including the wetlands, Larimer Canal No. 2, and
significant trees, will be viewable from the project’s pedestrian paths and dwelling units. To protect the surrounding
neighbors from headlights, the parking lots in the project are surrounded by a solid wood fence, which would be one
area where the project obstructs internal views into the site’s natural features. However, from concerns expressed by
the neighbors and good site design principles, staff finds this is an acceptable tradeoff.
August 16, 2011 -7- ITEM 28
v. Municipal Code 7.5 – Fees
It is long-standing City policy that development should pay its own way. The Appellants believe the Board
misinterpreted Municipal Code Chapter 7.5 with regard to development fees. Fee values for The Grove PDP that were
provided by City staff upon inquiry prior to the Planning and Zoning hearing appear to be substantially underestimated
compared to rates published by the City of Fort Collins. The Appellants do not understand why this should be so and
appeal to Council for clarification.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer / applicant has paid the required, full amount of development review fees with each submittal to the City
of Fort Collins, both for ODP’s and PDP’s. There were no Planning or Transportation Development Review Fee
reductions given for the project.
vi. LUC 1.2.2 protection of life safety (use of vinyl siding)
The Board misinterpreted the life safety provisions of the LUC with regard to vinyl siding, which can contribute to
combustion and produces extremely toxic smoke in a fire event. Page 11-18 of the Resident Report notes this problem
has led at least one town to ban the use of vinyl siding in multifamily housing. Fires may not be common in student-
oriented housing, but they are not unlikely. The fire sprinklers in the buildings of The Grove PDP do not offer protection
from this external fire hazard. Other sustainable siding products are available that do not contribute to combustion or
produce smoke of such extreme toxicity.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly address or prohibit the use of vinyl siding on buildings.
vii. LUC 1.2.2(H) energy conservation
The Board misinterpreted Section 1.2.2(H) requiring reduction of energy consumption and demand. The Applicant
originally intended to use air-source electric heat pumps to heat the 218 dwelling units of The Grove PDP. Air-source
electric heat pumps do not perform well in Colorado and require supplemental resistance heat when temperatures drop
below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. As noted on page 11-20 of the Resident Report, use of electricity for space heating in
this PDP has been of long-standing concern. Although the insulation performance of its model building has apparently
been improved, the Applicant did not commit to any other specific, more efficient heating system, and The Grove PDP
utility plan has no gas lines.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly prohibit the use of electric heat in a project. Also, at the Planning & Zoning
Board public hearing on June 16, 2011 the developers and their consultants indicated that they were still considering
alternative sources of heating for the project.
viii. LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Sidewalk directness and connectivity
The Board misinterpreted this provision that requires walkways to connect areas of pedestrian origin and destination
directly, rather than aligning them according to the shape of a parking lot, as specifically prohibited in 3.2.2(C)(5)(a).
The logical direct paths from the entrances of Buildings 8, 10 and 11 to the clubhouse, pool and central lawn are
directly across the two largest parking lots in The Grove PDP. There are no walkways through the parking lots and
islands do not line up to provide direct access. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins development plan provides good pedestrian connectivity to the front and rear entries to the
clubhouse, amenity area and central green on the west side of the clubhouse from Buildings 8, 10 and 11. From
Buildings 8 and 11 there are direct sidewalk connections to the east side (main entry) of the clubhouse, having only
to cross one driveway entry into a parking lot in each case.
August 16, 2011 -8- ITEM 28
ix. LUC 3.2.2(D)(3)(b) Guest parking
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring proportional distribution of guest parking off-street and located within
200 feet of the dwelling unit. There are no off-street parking spaces, let alone guest parking spaces, within 200 feet
of Buildings 4, 5 and much of Building 6. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan contains 69 more parking spaces than required by the Land Use
Code, not counting the 128 parallel parking spaces along Rolland Moore Drive and the Public Commercial Street. The
code does not specify a maximum distance from dwelling units for off-street parking spaces intended for residents of
the development. There are 4 – 6 parking spaces in the parking lot directly east of Building 6 that are within 200 feet
of the 2 entries to that building. Regarding Buildings 4 and 5, there are 14 parallel parking spaces in a recessed
parking area along Rolland Moore Drive, directly in front of the buildings, that could be identified and signed as guest
parking.
x. LUC 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling, distance from buildings and proximity to sidewalks.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.2.5{B) requiring adequate capacity, number and distribution of trash collection. Some
residents of The Grove will have to carry trash 300 feet to reach the nearest enclosure. The Board also misinterpreted
LUC 3.2.5(I)(1) requiring trash collection areas to be no closer than twenty (20) feet from any public street or sidewalk.
Two locations near Buildings 8 and 3 are closer than 20' to the sidewalk. Correction by providing additional collection
sites may reduce the number of parking spaces. (Resident Report, page 111-2 through 4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, there are 6 trash collection / recycling
enclosures that will be distributed throughout the development site. The proposed locations satisfy the intent of Section
3.2.5 by providing the enclosures near Buildings 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The trash enclosures nearest Buildings 3 and
8 are set back 10 feet to 13 feet from the street right-of-way; however, they can be moved to a 20 foot setback distance
with the Final Plan, prior to approval and recording, by eliminating one parking space in each case.
xi. LUC 3.S.2(C)(2) Street Facing Facades
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring at least one building entry or doorway facing any non-arterial street
with on-street parking. The east side of the Clubhouse faces the Public Commercial Street, but its elevation has no
doorway. (Resident Report, page 111-4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sheet 5 of the Site Plan set (dated 06.01.11) shows the main entry for the Clubhouse (w/Residential Above) building
to be on the east side, facing the proposed Public Commercial Street. The entry door would be 32 feet from the public
sidewalk along the street. The Front Elevation for the clubhouse, shown on Sheet 18 of the Clubhouse Elevations
(dated 06.01.11), contains an Aluminum Storefront Entry System (containing doors).
xii. LUC 3.2.2(K)(S)(b) Location of parking for disabled tenants
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring handicap parking spaces to be located as close as possible to the
nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. As noted in James R.
Loonan's letter following page 11-23 of the Resident Report, the accessible routes to Buildings 4 and 5 from the closest
dedicated parking for disabled tenants are 310 feet and 400 feet respectively.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
There are 15 identified and designed handicap parking spaces in The Grove at Fort Collins PDP. They are distributed
throughout the development. Only 9 handicap spaces are required in the lots containing a total of 403 spaces. There
are identified handicap parking spaces in lots that are a distance of 200 feet from Building 4 and 350 feet from Building
5.
August 16, 2011 -9- ITEM 28
xiii. LUC Section 3.6.3(F) Connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes development of
connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal No.2 that any street or alternative
transportation way would need extensive grading and construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have
a substantial impact on its function as a wildlife corridor. Other, better alignments are feasible that could reduce the
disruption needed to build connections to the south. Streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and wildlife
corridors throughout the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3(F) which requires Alternative Compliance
for connectivity to be equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code includes provisions for Alternative Compliance to provide connectivity to the south across Larimer
Canal No. 2 due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the
availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Environmental
Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan
and found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the
standard. The Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to
adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding level of service
standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2. The Planning &
Zoning Board approved this Alternative Compliance.
xiv. Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS guidelines for traffic studies in accepting conclusions drawn from deficient
assumptions in the TIS. Although the problematic intersection of Centre and Prospect will be the most heavily used
intersection by students bicycling to and from campus, only Shields and Rolland Moore Drive was studied for bicycle
level of service. The TIS also failed to examine major arterial intersections that occupants of The Grove PDP will need
to use for commuting and routine errands such as grocery shopping.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The development is proposed to be housing primarily for college students. As such, most of the trips expected to be
generated during the rush hours will be to and from the CSU campus. The expectation is also that those trips will
mostly be made by means other than motorized vehicles. Even with that expectation the Traffic Impact Study evaluated
the project with most of the peak hour trips being performed by motor vehicles (75% motor vehicle, 25% alternative
modes).
The intersection that is expected to experience the most consistent, reoccurring and measurable traffic (motor vehicle,
pedestrian or bicycling) from the development is the Centre Avenue and West Prospect Road intersection. All other
surrounding major arterial intersections are not expected to receive significant enough volumes of traffic from the
development during the peak traffic hours to discern from the daily background traffic. That is due to being low in
volume and as traffic moves further from its origin it becomes more dispersed.
The trips outside the rush hours, when more of the random travel for personal needs and services (groceries,
entertainment, etc.) is conducted, are typically random and sporadic in nature and the surrounding street system and
intersections have the capacity to handle those trips without measureable impact.
The City’s bicycle level of service standards do not specifically require the analysis of intersections similar to the
vehicular traffic study. Instead, the bicycle LOS standards require a development to directly connect to the greater
Fort Collins bicycle grid and all priority locations within a quarter mile of a site. City staff reviewed the submitted bicycle
LOS analysis and found that it complies with LCUASS standards.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter?
August 16, 2011 -10- ITEM 28
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan
and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and
associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and
other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation
(streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and
emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of
flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes
of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the
mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
2. Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking
(C) Development Standards. All developments shall meet the following standards:
(5) Walkways.
(a) Directness and continuity. Walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly
and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not
be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not
provide such direct pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building
entries through parking lots. Such walkways shall be raised or enhanced with a paved
surface not less than six (6) feet in width. Drive aisles leading to main entrances shall have
walkways on both sides of the drive aisle.
(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall
be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of
August 16, 2011 -11- ITEM 28
transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and
emergency vehicles).
(3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in a zone district
predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such district.
(b) Guest Parking. Off-street guest parking spaces in multi-family developments shall be
distributed proportionally to the dwelling unit locations that they are intended to serve. Such
parking shall not be located more than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling unit that is
intended to be served.
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(5) Handicap Parking.
(b) Location. Handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest
accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. When
practical, the accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes for vehicular traffic. When
crossing vehicle traffic lanes is necessary, the route of travel shall be designated and marked
as a crosswalk.
3. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding
land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of recyclable materials by requiring
that adequate, convenient space is functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial and
industrial land use sites.
(B) Regulations. The following regulations shall be applied to the extent reasonably feasible:
(1) All new commercial or multi-family structures and all existing commercial or multi-family structures
proposed to be enlarged by more than twenty-five (25) percent, or where a change of use is
proposed, shall provide adequate space for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable
materials.
(2) The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable materials shall be
designed to accommodate collection and storage containers that are appropriate for the recyclable
materials generated. Areas for storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be adequate in
capacity, number and distribution to serve the development project.*
(3) Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located abutting refuse collection and storage areas.
(4) Each trash and recycling enclosure shall be designed to allow walk-in access without having to
open the main enclosure service gates.
(5) Trash and recycling areas must be enclosed so that they are screened from public view. The
enclosure shall be constructed of durable materials such as masonry and shall be compatible with
the structure to which it is associated. Gates on the enclosures shall be constructed of metal or
some other comparable durable material, shall be painted to match the enclosure and shall be
properly maintained.
(6) Enclosure areas shall be designed to provide adequate, safe and efficient accessibility for service
vehicles.
(7) Enclosure areas shall be constructed on a cement concrete pad.
(8) The property owner shall supply and maintain adequate containers for recycling and waste
disposal. Containers must be clearly marked for recycling.
August 16, 2011 -12- ITEM 28
4. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall not be approved for
development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met:
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction
Standards.
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as established in Chapter
10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to flooding or
drainageways have been approved by the Water Utilities General Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other water channel,
necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property, and additional
measures such as fencing, water depth indicators and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the
extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an elevation such that
basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer to occur) shall not be platted for
building lots with basements unless adequate provisions to prevent groundwater from entering
basements have been designed and approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
(C) General Standard. To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan shall be designed and
arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals
that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community by: (1) directing
development away from sensitive resources, (2) minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use
of buffer zones, (3) enhancing existing conditions, or (4) restoring or replacing the resource value lost
to the community (either on-site or off-site) when a development proposal will result in the disturbance
of natural habitats or features.
(F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character.
(2) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or features that connect to
other off-site natural habitats or features, to the maximum extent feasible the development plan
shall preserve such natural connections. If natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in
the region immediately round about) the development site, but such natural habitats or features
are not presently connected across the development site, then the development plan shall, to the
extent reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections shall be designed and
constructed to allow for the continuance of existing wildlife movement between natural habitats or
features and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of new connections between areas
for the movement of wildlife.
(I) Design and Aesthetics.
(1) Project design. Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors,
including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be
designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural
design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall
be utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and
manmade facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character
of the area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground
utility installations.
August 16, 2011 -13- ITEM 28
(2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of
the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of
scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
6. Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding
area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this
Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained
in this Section that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar
terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made
by the Planning and Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating
the authorization of an additional use.
(B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is
not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set
an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be
achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in
building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns,
and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the
immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials.
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if
larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest
intersection. (See Figure 7.)
Figure 7
Infill Buildings
New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood through repetition
of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of characteristic entry features.
(E) Building Materials.
(1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the
neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and
proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough
similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials.
(2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building materials are
proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the potential for glare from such
materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse
August 16, 2011 -14- ITEM 28
impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in terms of vehicular safety,
outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such materials shall not be permitted.
(3) Windows.
(a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited.
(b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors.
(c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels,
and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale
and proportion.
(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying
the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that
already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood.
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed
adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the
community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through
compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors and
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise-
generating activities and similar restrictions.
(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of
development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing
neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on:
(1) hours of operation and deliveries;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as
noise and glare;
(3) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
7. Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(C) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
(2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least
one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has
on-street parking.
8. Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments
and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets
stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing
development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent
developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred
August 16, 2011 -15- ITEM 28
sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or
redevelopable land.
9. Section 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type
1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all
applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons
who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless
satisfied that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas
and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to
protect the adjacent neighborhood.
10. Section 4.6(D)(2) Mix of Housing Types
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Mix of Housing Types. A complete range of the permitted housing types is encouraged in a
neighborhood and within any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible,
depending on the size of the parcel. The following minimum standards are intended to promote
such variety:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any development parcel sixteen (16)
acres or larger, including parcels part of a phased development. A minimum of three (3)
housing types shall be required on any development parcels thirty (30) acres or larger.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
1. Small lot single-family detached dwellings on lots containing less than six thousand
(6,000) square feet.
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached dwellings.
4. Mixed-use dwelling units.
5. Group homes.
6. Multifamily dwellings.
11. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall
be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use
in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone
district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of
the development plan.
12. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a permitted use which depicts
the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project
development plan and/or a final plan.
August 16, 2011 -16- ITEM 28
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after
consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENT
1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Notice of Appeal, Dated June 29, 2011
- Resident Report
- Documents submitted at Planning and Zoning Board Hearing by Citizens, June 16, 2011
3. Staff Report (with attachments) to Planning and Zoning Board, dated June 16, 2011, for The Grove at Fort
Collins Project Development Plan (#16-10B)
4. Additional documentation for Staff Report, submitted by applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board at the
June 16, 2011 Hearing.
5. Documents submitted by various speakers to the Planning and Zoning Board at the June 16, 2011 Hearing.
6. Verbatim transcript of June 16, 2011 Hearing
7. Miscellaneous Documents Submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board June 16, 2011 Hearing
DATE: August 16, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of Chapter 2 of the City
Code Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on the community’s ability to respond to changing
conditions in the future. Council needs visionary and innovative advice regarding the community’s energy future as
it relates to the Plan Fort Collins goals for a sustainable community. Council is in need of advice from subject matter
experts, not just in the electric engineering field, but also other experts who are knowledgeable about such things as
to how the electrification of transportation impacts carbon emissions and energy consumption. To this end, an Energy
Board is being created to replace the Electric Board. The purpose of the Energy Board will be to take a systems
approach to the City’s energy future looking out 10 years and beyond and to advise Council on such matters.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Electric Board was created by Council in 1991 during a period of stability and has served admirably. However,
the electric utility industry is rapidly changing as new technologies become available. These technologies will empower
customers to make better decisions regarding their energy usage, allow customers to become part of the utility supply
chain through distributed generation and storage, and change market paradigms for the purchase and sale of energy.
Electricity is simply one form of energy. When one looks at the energy system as a whole, we begin to see the
relationships and interconnectedness between transportation, home energy usage, solid waste, industry, agriculture
etc.
Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on the community’s ability to respond to changing
conditions in the future. Council needs visionary and innovative advice regarding the community’s energy future as
it relates to Council adopted Plan Fort Collins goals for a sustainable community, the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan,
Energy Policy, and Green Building Program. To this end, this Board should be taking a systems approach to the
energy future looking out 10 years and beyond.
Policy related to energy use and generation in the City of Fort Collins is complex and involves multiple City Service
Areas. Energy, and its associated opportunities (economic and non-economic) and impacts (including carbon
emissions), are much broader than electric power generation and distribution. Citizen involvement and stakeholder
expertise provide valuable technical review, community perspective and third party oversight to inform City Council’s
decisions on energy related topics.
The Council-adopted Plan Fort Collins (2011), Climate Action Plan (2008), Energy Policy (2009), and Green Building
Code (2011) provide the framework for charting the City’s energy future. The proposed Board would advise the City
Council in an integrated way regarding these policies and overall energy and carbon matters. Going forward, it is very
likely that the City will be operating in a carbon constrained environment; that is to say, carbon emissions will be limited
by law and regulation. This has important implications for the community since the single largest source of City-related
carbon emissions is electric energy generation. The second largest is transportation. Interestingly, there is an
increasing interdependence between electricity and transportation as Smart Grid/Fort ZED is implemented and as we
transition from petroleum-based to electric vehicles.
The impacts of these changes and trends on the City’s electric system and carbon emissions will require rigorous
analysis and accounting procedures. Additionally, it is critical that we consider their energy and carbon impacts.
Furthermore, carbon regulation will have significant impacts on the operation and rates of the City’s Electric Utility and
our wholesale power supplier.
August 16, 2011 -2- ITEM 29
Thus, the functions of the Energy Board, in replacement of the current Electric Board, will be:
(1) To advise the City Council and staff regarding development and implementation of the City’s energy policy
(2) To advise the City Council and staff in developing City policies that encourage the incorporation of energy
conservation and efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, and renewable energy into the development and
provision of City utility services, the design and construction of City transportation projects, and the way in
which the City impacts the overall built environment within the City;
(3) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the alignment of energy programs and policies with City,
ratepayer and community values and service delivery expectations;
(4) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the recommendations for improvements to City energy systems;
(5) To coordinate with other City boards and commissions regarding energy issues;
(6) To advise the City Council and staff regarding budgetary, rate-making and operational matters related to the
electric utility;
(7) To annually review and provide advice to City Council and staff on the City’s Legislative Policy Agenda
regarding energy and energy-related carbon issues; and
(8) To perform such other duties and functions and have such other powers as may be provided by ordinance
of the City Council.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Although staff cannot quantify at this time, the Energy Board will be identifying businesses opportunities for a variety
of existing and new businesses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Energy Board will be identifying opportunities to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy balance through getting
the most out of the City’s resources.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 098, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING AND REENACTING DIVISION 14, ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER
2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DISSOLVING
THE ELECTRIC BOARD AND CREATING A NEW ENERGY BOARD
WHEREAS, the Electric Board is a City board established by ordinance in 1991 for the
purpose of advising City Council on policy matters pertaining to the municipal electric system and
acting as a sounding board to City staff for the purpose of identifying the ratepayers’ service
delivery expectations; and
WHEREAS, the concept of “energy” is broader in scope than electricity and encompasses
any source of usable power; and
WHEREAS, the City’s policies related to energy generation, distribution and use in the City
are complex and constantly evolving due to advances in the energy field and other related City
functions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has over recent years adopted numerous policies related to
energy, including but not limited to the following: (1) the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the updated Energy Policy identifying renewable energy portfolio
standards consistent with those set by the State of Colorado; (3) amendments to the City’s building
code to better align Fort Collins’ built environment with community goals of improved indoor
environmental quality, protection of the natural environment, reduced carbon emissions, reduced
energy use and reduced water use; and (4) an updated City Plan including new strategies for
transportation, increased energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy and other energy
uses; and
WHEREAS, City staff believes that in the future it is very likely that carbon emissions will
be regulated more broadly and stringently than they are today; and
WHEREAS, the single largest source of City-related carbon emissions is electric energy
generation and the second largest is transportation; and
WHEREAS, policy development related to energy use and generation requires advice and
input to City Council from subject matter experts who are familiar with not only the municipal
electric system but also with multiple other disciplines such as transportation; and
WHEREAS, by dissolving the Electric Board and establishing in its place a new Energy
Board, citizen involvement and stakeholder expertise will be available to City Council through a
board of volunteer members with expertise in all related disciplines; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests
of the City to dissolve the Electric Board and create a new Energy Board and has directed City staff
to develop a description in writing of the proposed functions of an Energy Board with broader
responsibilities and expertise than the current Electric Board; and
WHEREAS, one of the functions of the Electric Board is to act as the final appeal and
hearing body for customer complaints except as is otherwise provided in Chapter 26, Article XII
regarding termination of utility service and, upon dissolution of the Electric Board, this function will
become the responsibility of the City Manager’s Office.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-231 through 2-235 of Article III of Chapter 2 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins are hereby repealed with the following sections reenacted to read as follows:
DIVISION 14. ENERGY BOARD
Sec. 2-231. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created an Energy Board, hereafter referred to in
this Division as the “Board.”
Sec. 2-232. Membership; term.
(a) Board shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council.
(b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four years,
except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in
order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of office
of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City Council.
If a vacancy occurs on the Board, it shall be filled by the City Council for the
remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall serve more than two
consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a “term” shall include the
balance of an unexpired term served by a person appointed to fill a vacancy if such
unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24) months.
Sec. 2-233. Functions.
The duties and functions of the Board shall be:
(1) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the development and
implementation of the City’s energy policy;
(2) To advise the City Council and staff in developing City policies that
encourage the incorporation of energy conservation and efficiency, carbon
emissions reduction, and renewable energy into the development and
provision of City utility services, the design and construction of City
-2-
transportation projects, and the way in which the City impacts the overall
built environment within the City.
(3) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the alignment of energy programs
and policies with City, ratepayer and community values and service delivery
expectations;
(4) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the recommendations for
improvements to City energy systems;
(5) To coordinate with other City boards and commissions regarding energy
issues;
(6) To advise the City Council and staff regarding budgetary, rate-making and
operational matters related to the electric utility;
(7) To annually review and provide advice to City Council and staff on the City’s
Legislative Policy Agenda regarding energy and energy-related carbon issues; and
(8) To perform such other duties and functions and have such other powers as
may be provided by ordinance of the City Council.
Sec. 2-234. Officers; bylaws.
The Board shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such
officers as may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Board, which bylaws
shall not be inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may be
established by the City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City
Clerk for the use of the City Council immediately after adoption by the Board, and
the same may be subject to the approval of the City Council.
Sec. 2-235. Minutes; annual report; work plan.
The Board shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2-
73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Board shall file a report
with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Board for the previous year. On
or before November 30 of each year, the Board shall file a work plan with the City
Clerk for the following year.
Section 2. That the currently appointed members of the Electric Board shall continue
to perform the duties and functions of members of the Electric Board as described in Section 2-233
of the City Code until such time as the City Council approves appointments to the newly created
Energy Board.
Section 3. That a new Section 26-448 shall be added to Chapter 26, Article VI, Division
3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins which reads in its entirety as follows:
-3-
Sec. 26-448. Appeals.
Any customer who believes that he or she has been aggrieved by a final
determination or decision by the Utilities General Manager or his or her designee
regarding the application of the requirements of Article II of Chapter 26 or any rules
or regulations authorized under such article may petition the Utilities General
Manager for a hearing. The General Manager may appoint a hearing officer or elect
to conduct such hearing him or herself, provided that the aggrieved party makes
written application for such hearing within seven (7) days of the date or such final
determination or decision. If a timely request for hearing is made, a hearing
concerning the proprietary of the final determination or decision shall be granted to
the aggrieved party and, after notice to the aggrieved party, the hearing shall be held
no more than ten (10) calendar days after the filing of the request for hearing. At the
hearing the appellant and the City may be represented by an attorney, may present
evidence and may cross-examine witnesses. A verbatim transcript of the hearing
shall be made. The decision of the hearing officer or Utilities General Manager shall
be based upon competent evidence. The aggrieved party may file an appeal from
such hearing to the City Manager’s Office pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI, § 2-541
of this Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
Page 6 of 6
Recommendation
$3,000
$3,000
(HSP KFCG grant)
$0 100%
PS-26 Teaching Tree -
Sliding Scale Fee Tuition
Assistance
Request
$60,000
Recommendation
$60,000
$60,000
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-27 Volunteers of
America - Home
Delivered Meal Program
Request
$29,200
Recommendation
$29,200
$29,200
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-28 Women’s
Resource Center: Dental
Connections
Request
$44,890
Recommendation
$32,890
$32,890
(HSP grant)
$12,000 73%
A summary of the Commission's funding recommendations by category is presented in the following table:
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$1,177,164 57.0% Affordable Housing
689,458 33.4% Public Services
198,832 9.6% CDBG Administration
$2,065,454 100.0% Total
The CDBG Commission has recommended all (100%) of the available funding amount of $2,065,454 be allocated.
The Commission has recommended that one of the three affordable housing proposals receive full funding, one to
receive 99% of its request; while the third proposal is recommended for no funding. The Commission has
recommended that 13 of the 28 public service proposals receive full funding; 11 proposals receive partial funding
(ranging from 43% to 94%); and 4 proposals to receive no funding. The justifications for the Commission’s
recommendations can be found in Attachment 5, Minutes of the May 12, 2011, meeting.
.
HOME Program
Resolution 2011-064 establishes the major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2011 Program
year, which starts on October 1, 2011. Specific projects for the use of HOME funds will be determined in November
as a result of the 2011 fall funding cycle of the competitive process for the allocation of the City’s financial resources
to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities. The FY 2011 HOME Grant is
$599,259, HOME Program Income for 2011 is $45,093, for a total of $644,352. The following table summarizes the
sources of HOME funding for FY 2011.
Recommendation
$19,483
$19,483
(CDBG grant)
$2,526 89%
PS-12 Elderhaus:
Mindset Therapy Center
Program
Request
$23,592
Recommendation
$23,592
$23,592
(CDBG grant)
$0 100%
PS-13 Family Center:
Sliding Scale Fee Tuition
Request
$30,000
Recommendation
$30,000
$30,000
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-14 Food Bank for
Larimer County: Kids
Café Program
Request
$21,000
Recommendation
$21,000
$21,000
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-15 Homelessness
Prevention Initiative:
Emergency Rent
Assistance
Request
$45,000
Recommendation
$45,000
$45,000
(HSP KFCG grant)
$0 100%
PS-16 Larimer Center for
Mental Health –
Community Dual
Disorders Treatment
Request
$27,082
Recommendation
$14,000
$14,000
(HSP grant)
$13,082 52%
Ps-17 Larimer Center for
Mental Health –
Employee Assistance
Murphy Center
Request
$16,012
Recommendation
$0
$0 $16,012 0%
PS-18 Matthews House -
Transition Program
Request
$27,639
Recommendation
$27,639
$27,639
(HSP grant)
$0 100%
PS-19 Neighbor to
Neighbor -Housing
Counseling
Request
$69,205
Recommendation
$40,175
$10,175
(HSP grant)
$30,000
(HSP KFCG grant)
$29,030 58%
PS-20 Neighbor to
Neighbor - Rent
Assistance
Request
$25,000
Recommendation
$25,000
$25,000
(HSP KFCG grant)
$0 100%
Public Service
Applicant
Project/Program
Request and
Recommendation
Source(s) of
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent of
Request Funded
PS-1 B.AS.E. Camp:
Sliding Scale Fee Tuition
Request
$57,000
Recommendation
$57,000
$57,000
(CDBG grant)
$0 100%
PS-2 Boys & Girls Club:
After-school and School-
break Child Care and
Youth Program
Request
$19,892
Recommendation
$18,644
$18,644
(HSP grant)
$1,248 94%
PS-3 Care – Supportive
Services Program
Request
$25,000
Recommendation
$0
$0 $25,000 0%
PS-4 CASA – Program
Support
Request
$14,976
Recommendation
$9,360
$9,360
(HSP grant)
$5,616 63%
PS-5 Catholic Charities :
Senior Outreach
Request
$12,000
Recommendation
$11,331
$11,331
(HSP grant)
$669 94%
PS-6 Catholic Charities
the Mission and
Supportive Services
Request
$75,000
Recommendation
$40,000
$40,000
(CDBG grant)
$35,000 53%
home by a first-time home buyer.