HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/01/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ODATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting and the October 11, 2011
Adjourned Meeting.
October 4, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, commented on Public Power Week and stated the Urban
Renewal Authority is not using best practices.
Suzanne Durkin-Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, discussed a new non-profit created as an
extension of the Restorative Justice program.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, discussed the
proposed redevelopment of the Bender Mobile Home Park on Wood Street and requested that
Council authorize adequate relocation funds for the residents.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Community Affairs, requested a formal update regarding the
removal of ASCSU/City signs.
Deborah Goodson, 912 Wood Street, expressed concern regarding the relocation of Wood Street
Mobile Home Park residents and requested that Council authorize adequate relocation funds.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
City Manager Atteberry stated Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager, met with Mr. Eckert
and stated a solution regarding the signs is in progress.
Councilmember Poppaw asked what role the City can play with regard to the displaced residents at
the Wood Street Mobile Home Park. City Manager Atteberry stated a response will be provided
within a week. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services,
replied a meeting occurred this afternoon regarding the assembly of resources and identification of
roles and responsibilities.
61
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak requested additional information prior to the October 18, 2011 meeting. City
Manager Atteberry replied the information will be forthcoming as quickly as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what responsibilities lay with the County, developer, and residents
and noted the importance of ensuring residents moving early are not lost in the process.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility has a reliability rating of over 99%.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer
Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
The current version of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail
Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) is outdated and does not operate in the latest
Windows or Internet Explorer environments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on September 20, 2011, authorizes the appropriation of funds needed for Fort
Collins Police Services to upgrade the current systems (software, hardware and project
manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. and will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional
Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-
date.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to
Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City
Manager, and the City Attorney.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the
financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City
Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person
making disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the
purpose of resale and profit, as currently required.
9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12
of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
City Code currently requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which
cannot exceed twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in
62
October 4, 2011
height. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011,
will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The Code
amendments will serve to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and
provide options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass.
The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would
have a height limit of twelve inches.
10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of
the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial
Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs
of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
Ordinance No. 126, 2011, will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with
defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe
within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond
thirty days. Ordinance No. 127, 2011, provides the option of an appeal process for weed
and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development &
Neighborhood Services or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the
appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements. Both Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing
community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication
of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately
three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance
will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza
project.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set
to begin with Phase V. City Council has previously authorized the first five phases of
acquisition work, which included Phases I through IV, as well as a Phase III-A.
63
October 4, 2011
Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City
Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s
acquisition process for the property interests within this phase.
As a federally-funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as
amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this Act, property owners must be
informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado
State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is
needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official
step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the
recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be
conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required
property interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent
domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer
Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to
Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City
Manager, and the City Attorney.
9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12
of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of
the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial
Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs
of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
64
October 4, 2011
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item No. 8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123,
2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements
for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry commented on a visit by Park City, Utah representatives.
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, presented information about the Neighborhood Grant
Program.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat acknowledged the CSU journalism majors in the audience.
Councilmember Horak discussed the Poudre Fire Authority Chief selection schedule and the PRPA
budget and wholesale rate increases over the next three years.
Councilmember Troxell stated there was a celebration of the Fort Zed demonstration project on
September 24th. He discussed the grand re-opening of the Laurel and Myrtle area alleys and a tour
of the Larimer County Detention facility.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011,
Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered
Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City
to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
65
October 4, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be
mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all
active registered electors. In addition, the Code would be amended to require that the City pay
postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter
participation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the “Mail
Ballot Election Act”. In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election
provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election Act, although the City’s provisions as written in
2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible, because under the State
Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern.
Mail Ballot Recipients
The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to “each active
registered elector”. Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who
automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted
in the last presidential election.
Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each
registered voter has a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State as follows:
a. “Active status” or “active record” means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the
voter’s eligibility.
b. “Cancelled status” or “cancelled record” means that the voter’s registration has been
cancelled or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant
has been deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the
voter has withdrawn their registration.
c. “Inactive – failed to vote status” means that the voter was active prior to a General
Election, but subsequently failed to vote in that General Election.
d. “Inactive – returned mail status” or “inactive – undeliverable status” means that a voter
information card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the
United States Postal Service as undeliverable.
e. “Inactive – undeliverable ballot status” means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was
subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service
as undeliverable.
66
October 4, 2011
This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as “inactive - failed to vote”, specifically
those voters who are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non-presidential
General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014, Nov 2018, etc.). Voters who failed to vote in both the
presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc.) and the non-presidential election two
years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any eligible voter
(other than one who has a “cancelled” status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may
request a ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter’s
registration information (primarily current address). This paperwork is forwarded to the County
elections office after the City’s election and is used to not only update registration information, but
also serves to change the voter’s registration back to “active”.
Return Postage
The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage
when returning a ballot by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be
accomplished through a postage permit under which the City will pay postage only on those ballots
returned, at the current first-class rate.
This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Mail Ballot Recipients
Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if
ballots were mailed to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The
approximate cost to include those additional voters would have been $19,000.
Return Postage
For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return
postage on those ballots, the cost would have been $7,465. “
Rita Harris, Chief Deputy City Clerk, stated this Ordinance would expand the group of registered
electors who automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive voters who are
inactive because they did not vote in the last non-presidential County election but who did vote in
the last presidential election. The Ordinance would also establish that the City will pay the postage
for all voted ballots returned by mail.
Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, Fort Collins Ranked Voting representative, supported the
Ordinance.
Ken Tharp, 601 Birky Place, supported the Ordinance and instant runoff elections.
67
October 4, 2011
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Ordinance and ranked voting and suggested
changing City elections from April to November .
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the Ordinance but expressed concern about the
lack of a public process and boards and commissions review regarding the issue.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, supported the Ordinance
and encouraged mailing ballots to all registered voters.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many voters exist in each classification. Chief Deputy City
Clerk Harris replied there are approximately 40,000 inactive voters versus 7,900 voters who are
inactive but did vote in the presidential election.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the postage estimate. Deputy City Clerk Harris replied the cost
estimate for approximately17,000 ballots returned by mail in the most recent election held (April
2011) is $7,500 for return postage.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the public process regarding the item. Harris replied voter
registration information comes from Larimer County and the County played a large role in
determining estimates for the item. No public outreach was conducted.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted these changes resulted from the Council formal work plan.
Councilmember Horak requested a cost estimate of sending ballots to all registered voters. Harris
replied the outgoing postage would add approximately $65,000 and noted many would likely be
returned as undeliverable as the County has already determined unreported address changes.
Councilmember Horak asked if election notices are placed in the Utility inserts. Harris replied there
is typically a great deal of media coverage regarding elections; however, the utility inserts have not
included information for quite some time.
Councilmember Manvel asked for a cost estimate of the City’s April election. Harris replied the
April election cost $96,000. Adding voters who voted in the last presidential election would add
$19,000 to that cost and adding all inactive voters would add $65,000 to that cost. Harris noted the
City would not be able to impose these on the County in a coordinated election and the changes
would not take effect until April 2013.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if all of the previous analysis and work session information could be
included in the Second Reading packet. Harris replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 130, 2011 , on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel supported the ordinance as proposed.
68
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw supported the elimination of financial barriers for electors.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would like to see the data, but supported the changes.
Councilmember Horak proposed a friendly amendment to allow the elector to provide the necessary
postage. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw accepted the amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested information regarding additional publication of elections prior
to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak suggested outreach to boards and commissions in terms of ideas for
publicizing elections.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 131, 2011,
Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for
Hearing Appeals to the City Council, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance makes several changes to the way in which appeals to the City Council are handled.
The changes are in response to concerns and suggestions of persons who have participated in recent
land use appeals, and to direction provided by the City Council at a Council work session. The
changes deal with the following topics: the scheduling of the appeal hearing; the ability of
Councilmembers who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal; the ability of opponents
of an appeal to present their views in writing in addition to presenting argument at the hearing; the
manner in which site visits are conducted; the submission of written materials to the Council; and
expanding the group of persons who can participate in appeal hearings.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure whereby the final
decisions of certain boards and commissions and other decision makers can be appealed to the City
Council. Most frequently, this appeal process is used for considering appeals from the decisions
of the Planning and Zoning Board or the City’s administrative hearing officer on applications for
approval of land use proposals. Over the recent past, parties on both sides of the appeal process
have expressed concerns about the process and have suggested ways in which it could be improved.
69
October 4, 2011
On June 14, 2011, at a City Council work session, the Council considered a number of these issues,
including the possibility of establishing a “de novo” appeal process in place of the existing “on the
record” appeal process. Under a de novo process, the Council would conduct an entirely new
hearing on the matter that had been decided by the initial decision maker rather than limiting the
evidence at the appeal hearing to the record that was established at the hearing before the initial
decision maker. At the conclusion of the work session discussion, the Council indicated a
preference for retaining the current appeal process but making several revisions. The proposed
revisions to be included in this Ordinance were the following:
• eliminating the current provision that prevents Councilmembers who file an appeal from
participating in hearing the appeal;
• expanding the period of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be scheduled; and
• expanding the group of persons who are entitled to speak at an appeal hearing to include
members of the general public.
Those changes are included in the proposed Ordinance. In addition, City staff has recommended
the following additional changes:
• creating an opportunity for parties opposed to an appeal to file a statement in opposition to
the appeal;
• clarifying the extent to which new evidence may be contained in written materials presented
to the Council prior to the hearing and in presentations made at the hearing;
• clarifying the purpose and procedure for conducting inspections of the site that is the subject
of an appeal.
The primary purpose behind allowing opponents of an appeal to file a written statement in
opposition to the appeal is to give the parties on both sides of the appeal early notice of the other
party’s position. In that way, the parties canbetter prepare and focus their remarks at the appeal
hearing. This change should also shorten the time needed at the appeal hearing for the parties to
make their oral presentations, especially in the case of appeals that are complex in nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of all of the proposed changes with the exception of expanding participation in
the appeal process to allow comment at the appeal hearing by members of the general public in
addition to parties-in-interest. Staff is concerned about that proposal for several reasons.
First, the City’s decision whether to approve a land use proposal is made through a “quasi judicial”
process in which the decision maker (both the initial decision maker and the City Council),
determine the rights of particular parties who are directly and immediately affected by the proposal.
The decision must be based upon established criteria. Those who have been involved in the process
70
October 4, 2011
prior to the Council appeal hearing and who are directly affected by a development proposal are
more likely to focus their remarks on the facts in the record and the relevant criteria rather than on
general policy consideration.
Second, the City Code already defines “parties-in-interest” to include not only the applicant, the
interest holder in the property that is the subject of the application, and those who live close to the
site, but also those members of the general public who sent comments to the initial decision maker
or appeared at the hearing before the initial decision maker. Thus, the general public is already
able to participate in the process for reviewing land use applications.
Third, allowing the general public to speak at the appeal hearing would likely make it more difficult
for the Council to hear all persons who wish to speak at the hearing within the limited period of time
that is available for presentations at the hearing.
Finally, this change could be construed as expanding the group of persons who would have legal
“standing” to challenge the Council’s decision in court, in which case, then even nonresidents of
the City who have no direct stake in the approval or denial of the particular application could bring
such a challenge. Therefore, if the Council decides to make this change, staff recommends that
additional language be added on Second Reading expressly stating that the ability of members of
the public to speak at the appeal hearing should not be construed as giving those members of the
public the right to challenge the City Council’s decision in court.”
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, introduced the
history of the item.
City Attorney Roy stated staff is recommending several proposed changes, including allowing
additional time for holding an appeal hearing, adding an opportunity for a formal, written statement
in opposition to an appeal, clarification of site inspection procedures. Staff is recommending against
allowing members of the general public to comment at the appeal hearing.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, supported staff’s recommendations.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Ordinance does not address citizen concerns and
added the process is not working for a variety of reasons.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a memo within a week regarding the appeal issues raised by
Council, neighborhoods, and staff, and asked when those changes can be expected to come forward.
Cumbo replied a summary of the changes made in the last year will be forthcoming.
Councilmember Troxell supported staff and noted City staff is upholding the Land Use Code as
approved by Council. Cumbo noted the content of the Land Use Code is reviewed annually as part
of an on-going process.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 131, 2011 , on First Reading.
71
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to remove the section referencing
participation in appeal hearings by the general public; thereby accepting staff’s recommendation.
Councilmember Manvel did not accept the amendment.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to amend Ordinance
No. 131, 2011, to remove the phrases relating to general public participation.
Councilmember Horak noted any participant in the Planning and Zoning Board hearing is
considered a party-in-interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed limiting citizen comment.
Mayor Weitkunat noted appeals are based on a record of previous events and supported limiting
citizen comment to only parties-in-interest.
Councilmember Manvel supported being inclusive in terms of citizen comments.
Councilmember Poppaw opposed limiting citizen comment.
Councilmember Horak opposed allowing participation by individuals other than parties-in-interest.
City Attorney Roy noted allowing only parties-in-interest to participate in appeal hearings could
help protect against decisions that may stray from the criteria.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the presentation time allotment is distributed for each side of
the appeal. City Attorney Roy replied the issue has not been a problem in the past; however, the
Mayor has the final say as to the scope and time of presentations. The Mayor has the ability to cut
off presentations at the end of the allotted time.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how it is certain that speakers are parties-in-interest. City Attorney
Roy replied objections could occur or the Mayor could ask each speaker how he qualifies as a party-
in-interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would be more likely to support the amendment if a plan for
additional community publicity is put into place. Cumbo replied notices of hearing are published
and each property is posted with a sign for development review. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested
the site signs be larger.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the amendment as all members of the public should be allowed to
participate.
Councilmember Horak stated allowing the general public to participate in appeal hearings will work
against neighborhood members who have attempted to put together a cohesive argument.
72
October 4, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted the appeals process is a final process and is questioning the reasoning for
the inclusion at that point.
Councilmember Troxell stated the inclusion of general public in the appeal hearing could dilute the
arguments of each side.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: Ohlson and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmembers Horak and Manvel requested staff provide additional
ideas relating to informing the general public of development proposals.
Councilmember Horak asked if the phrase “opposed” could be eliminated from Section 2-53. City
Attorney Roy replied it would not present a legal issue.
Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to amend Section 2-53(a) to remove the
phrases “opposed to the appeal” and “in opposition to an appeal” in Section 2-53(b).
Councilmembers Troxell and Manvel accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Horak stated this change would allow both sides of the appeal to present written
arguments prior to the appeal hearing.
The vote on the motion to adopted Ordinance No. 131, 2011, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2011-092
Further Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing
the Conduct of City Council Meetings, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution would further amend the rules of procedure with regard to comments by citizens
during the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings insofar as those comments are related
to quasi-judicial matters. The language would be refined to state that comments would not be
permitted on matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval
or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.
73
October 4, 2011
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its meeting on September 20, 2011, the Council approved certain changes to its rules of
procedure for conducting Council meetings. One of those changes dealt with a citizen’s ability to
comment on quasi-judicial matters under the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings.
After considerable discussion and citizen input, the Council modified the language that had been
proposed by staff so that citizens would be permitted to comment on land use proposals up to the
point in time when a formal application for approval of the proposal was filed with the City. After
that point in time, comments would not be permitted at Council meetings.
The language recommended by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council on September
20th reads as follows:
Section 3.Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be
allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) a pending land use proposal that, if approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council.
Upon further review, staff believes that there are two problems with this language. First, it fails to
take into consideration other kinds of quasi-judicial decisions besides those dealing with land use
proposals. Second, it is limited to situations in which a proposal is approved by the initial decision
maker and does not address proposals that are not approved.
To address these concerns, staff is recommending that the language be further revised to read as
follows:
Section 3.Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be
allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval or
disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.”
City Attorney Roy stated an amended Resolution was provided to Council in the Read-Before
packet. This change was debated at the last Council meeting and is related to whether or not, and
to what extent, citizens commenting during public participation can comment on quasi-judicial
matters. Council had previously opted to prohibit public participation on quasi-judicial matters in
situations where an application for approval of a development proposal had been filed, or pending
applications.
74
October 4, 2011
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Resolution until such time as the appeals process
has been changed. He suggested this prohibition aids in staff shaping outcomes of land use
decisions.
Councilmember Horak asked what this change is based upon. City Attorney Roy replied the change
is based upon his interpretation of the requirements of due process as applied to the quasi-judicial
process and, in particular, the phenomenon of citizens using the citizen participation time to speak
to quasi-judicial matters.
Councilmember Horak asked if any neighboring jurisdictions have similar regulations. City
Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-092 as amended.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted this change allows citizens to address Council at least until a formal
application has been filed. City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution brings forward an amendment
to the policy to establish the current practice and softens the current practice to allow citizen
participation comments related to potential quasi-judicial matters up to the point of an application
being filed.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the discussion of quasi-judicial matters was previously allowed
during citizen participation. City Attorney Roy replied the prohibition began following the increase
in frequency of citizens discussing quasi-judicial issues.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the Resolution and is of the opinion that citizens
should be allowed to speak to any issue during citizen participation.
Councilmember Manvel stated the input to the process needs to be more controlled and supported
the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak stated applications can be submitted and withdrawn multiple times. City
Attorney Roy noted this refers only to applications that are quasi-judicial in nature and includes only
applications which may be appealable to Council. If this is applied only to quasi-judicial
applications before the Planning and Zoning Board, it creates an inequality with other quasi-judicial
issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested tightening the language to perhaps allow citizen input before
Council until an item is placed on the Planning and Zoning Board agenda. City Attorney Roy
clarified that an item is considered quasi-judicial from the start of the process if it is possibly
appealable to Council.
A lengthy discussion was held regarding the previously adopted Resolution and City Attorney Roy’s
opinion that the language in that Resolution is flawed.
75
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak asked how citizens can be made aware of filed applications. Cumbo replied
there is information on the web page regarding current applications and Council can be provided
with a running list of filed applications.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays:
Ohlson and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry refuted Mr. Sutherland’s comments regarding City staff and the appearance
of corruption.
Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand
the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council,
the City Manager, and the City Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the
financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City
Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making
disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of
resale and profit, as currently required.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the financing of projects with public funds and
ethics in public service.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted this item would increase the amount of disclosure and expose
potential conflicts of interest.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 123, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on October 11, 2011, to consider various matters related to the construction of Phase III of the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station transmission line project, including a possible
executive session and subsequent formal action by the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
76
October 4, 2011
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
77
October 11, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 11,
2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Daggett.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the
attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff to discuss possible litigation regarding the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation power line project and related legal issues.
Councilmember Horak stated he would prefer to have a staff presentation prior to the Executive
Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Manvel withdrew the motion to go into Executive
Session.
Pineridge Natural Area Transmission Line Construction Alternatives Study
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“ÉXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will be presenting a draft study which examines alternative construction methodologies. The
study examines the environmental, economic, aesthetic, reliability and schedule impacts of the
potential alternatives. Staff is seeking Council direction on what alternative, if any, it wishes to
pursue.
Key to the discussion of potential alternatives is Western Area Power Administration’s (Western)
adamant position denying consideration of undergrounding its existing and future transmission
facilities. Western has also indicated that, within a decade, it plans to upgrade the overhead
transmission line crossing Pineridge Natural Area. This position significantly limits options
available to address view shed impacts. An underground option is examined and the probable
Western line across Pineridge is illustrated, but ultimately due to Western’s position, the majority
of options examined are related to alternate overhead construction methods.
78
October 11, 2011
Options examined include:
• Relocate the proposed line to one of three alternate routes in order to lessen visual impacts.
• Change the appearance of the proposed line through the use of either galvanized (silver) or
other color treatment.
• In place of the proposed tall single poles, use shorter double pole construction similar to the
existing line.
• Decrease the number of poles in the Pineridge area by extending the distance between poles.
This will require taller poles.
• Rather than building a double circuit line, upgrade just the existing. This would require
additional substation equipment.
• Underground the new line and leave the existing Western line in place.
In addition to the transmission line alternatives, staff and SAIC have also prepared a report that
examines potentially available Distributed Generation (DG) technologies that might be available.
While City staff recognizes an immediate need to provide additional electric requirements to the
Loveland and south Fort Collins areas, integration of DG technologies are also being studied to
augment our future electrical demand. Fort Collins cannot dictate what the City of Loveland does
and does not do on its system; however the hope is that the information will be of value as the City
looks at the integration of DG on its systems.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
To address reliability issues, Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is in the final stages of
upgrading the area transmission network by adding 230-kV transmission facilities, in particular the
Dixon Creek to Horseshoe interconnection project (Project). To date, Platte River has
accomplished two phases of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe transmission line. This report addresses
issues that have been raised related to the Phase III of the Platte River Project which extends from
Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap Switching Station. A point of contention for Phase III
has been the section that is planned to be constructed overhead by rebuilding the existing Western
Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area in Fort
Collins as a double-circuit steel pole line. This section was planned to complete the Dixon Creek
to Horseshoe 230-kV transmission corridor conversion by a summer 2012 in-service deadline.
Construction staging for Phase III began in the spring of 2011. As activity on the project escalated,
citizens began to take notice. Although the required public process for notification was followed
from 2005 up through today, a significant number of citizens were unaware of the project. As
observed at Council meetings, and through other media, there has been concern voiced with the
impact the project will have on the Pineridge Natural Area. As noted, the required public
engagement process was done as part of the project. However, there was not a strong focused
process to build informed consent or at a minimum acceptance of the project. Projects such as the
Pineridge transmission project require a heightened level of engagement with the community and
more specifically those stakeholders that are directly affected by a project. In this case, as with any
large project that has substantial impact, the minimum process does not adequately achieve the
required level of engagement. As a result, Platte River and the City have devoted significant
79
October 11, 2011
resources exploring opportunities to address citizen concerns, which should have been done
throughout the project.
On August 16, 2011, City Council , by motion, directed staff (1) to attempt to negotiate with the
Platte River Power Authority a written agreement to postpone the commencement of construction
of Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line project
pending the completion of a rigorous, in-depth data-based analysis and review of the project and
its related impacts as presently designed, as well as the pros, cons, costs and benefits of the project
and further pending the review and consideration of that analysis by the Fort Collins City Council
and the other member cities of PRPA; (2) if such an agreement has not been negotiated and signed
between PRPA and City on or before August 26, 2011, to work with the Mayor to schedule a special
meeting of the City Council to be held no later than August 31, 2011, for the purpose of seeking
Council approval of the commencement of such litigation as may be necessary for the City to seek
adjunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction adjoining the construction of the project;
and (3) to prepare such legal documents as may be necessary to file such a court action pending
further direction from the Council.
On August 25, 2011, the Platte River Board of Directors passed a motion directing:
“Platte River Power Authority to temporarily delay further construction activities associated with
Phase III of the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe transmission upgrade until October 18, 2011, provided
an agreement, suitable to the General Manager, can be reached with the City of Fort Collins in
order to use this period of delay to study alternative means to complete the 230 kV circuit presently
under construction that will provide a redundant transmission circuit to the City of Loveland.
During the period between now and October 18, staff is directed to cooperate fully with the City of
Fort Collins to retain a mutually agreeable, nationally recognized engineering consultant to
complete the referenced study. The results of the study of alternative means to complete the 230 kV
transmission circuit will be presented to the City Council of Fort Collins on October 18 for action
by the City Council. Due to the critical importance of the new 230 kV circuit to the reliability of
service to the City of Loveland and residents of south Fort Collins, any alternatives must complete
the connection by June 1, 2012.
Fort Collins must pay the incremental costs of any alternative pursued. Platte River is willing to
pay a reasonable amount for the retention of the engineering consultant, such amount not to exceed
one half of the expenses.”
The end result of a multi stepped process has been to develop the Agreement signed on August 31,
2011 (Attachment 1). In that Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Platte River Power Authority
agreed to hire SAIC / R.W. Beck to analyze the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe project and examine
alternative ways to accomplish the purposes of the project. Staff, Platte River and SAIC have been
diligently working on the Alternatives Study. The initial schedule called for the study to be
completed by October 10, 2011 for inclusion in the Council packet for the October 18, 2011
meeting. In order to provide information for the October 11, 2011 adjourned meeting, the study
materials that are attached are a 90% draft of the final report (Attachments 2 and 3).”
80
October 11, 2011
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Director, introduced the draft report, detailing potential
alternatives to the proposed power line project.
Joni Baston, SAIC Consultants, presented a summary of the transmission planning process and
discussed the need for the project.
Chuck Williams, SAIC Consultants, detailed the Phase III portion of the project, which runs through
Pineridge Natural Area and parallels Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission
lines. He noted WAPA will not consider undergrounding its transmission lines. Other alternatives
that were examined included color-treating the tubular steel poles and using a double-circuit H-
frame structure. Mr. Williams detailed various potential routes for the power lines.
Michelle Rossi, SAIC Consultants, discussed the distributed generation portion of the study.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the history of Platte River Power Authority.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the goal of the project is to bring reliability and redundancy to the
City of Loveland. Mr. Williams replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell asked for information regarding the peak load of the City of Loveland. Ms.
Baston replied the 2011 summer peak load was 155.7 megawatts.
Councilmember Troxell discussed distributed energy generation.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the
attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff to discuss possible litigation regarding the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation power line project and related legal issues. Yeas:
Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weitkunat. Nays: Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council went into Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. and resumed the meeting
at 7:35 p.m.)
Councilmember Horak stated the SAIC Study provided information on the issues involved that was
useful in deciding whether to pursue any further action concerning this project and none of the
alternatives are especially attractive, given the costs. None of the alternatives are feasible. He
added the placement of PRPA power lines warrants an improved, more extensive process and public
input procedure. PRPA needs to be willing to change procedures as community values change. A
resolution directing staff to seek these changes with PRPA should be discussed at the October 18
meeting.
81
October 11, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported a resolution that would direct staff to work with PRPA to develop
policies and procedures that would address the issues raised, including incorporating viewsheds and
wildlife habitats into PRPA values and policies. Additionally, he suggested equivalent studies to
that of SAIC be completed by PRPA; improvements should be made to the public notification
process; and PRPA, along with its member cities, should work together to adopt best practices
easement policies. He suggested the City should be involved in PRPA’s long range planning
process and both on-site and off-site mitigation policies should be examined.
Councilmember Troxell suggested PRPA needs to engage distribution utility engineering and design
to understand the requirements of its member communities. He encouraged further discussion on
all levels within the member communities.
City Manager Atteberry suggested additional public notification and outreach, including certified
mail notification to mayors and city managers of proposed projects.
Mayor Weitkunat stated community values need to be part of the process in the future.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
82