No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 06/19/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Ken Summers, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk Regular Meeting June 19, 2018 (Amended 6/18/18) Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221- 6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Formal Swearing-in Ceremony for Police Chief 5:15 p.m. Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. No Proclamations or Presentations City of Fort Collins Page 2 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  CALL MEETING TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER  City Manager Review of Agenda.  Consent Calendar Review This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion Items. o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion Items.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the Council.  Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping purposes).  All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand, and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for those who are not able to stand while waiting).  The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.  Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be provided to the City Clerk.  A timer will beep once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain, and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. [**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development, citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP City of Fort Collins Page 3 Consent Calendar The Consent 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 to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: ● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; ● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; ● Those of no perceived controversy; ● Routine administrative actions. 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 22, 2018 Adjourned Meeting, May 29, 2018 Special Meeting, June 5, 2018 Regular Meeting and the June 11, 2018 Adjourned Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 22, 2018 Adjourned Council meeting, May 29, 2018 Special Council meeting, June 5, 2018 Regular Council meeting and the June 11, 2018 Adjourned Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund for the Light and Power New Circuits Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, appropriates funds from Light & Power Reserves to serve the newly annexed Water Treatment Facility ($1,300,000) and to meet capacity needs at the East Harmony Industrial Park ($480,000) and the Southwest Residential Area ($230,000). The appropriation also includes $7,100 for Art in Public Places (APP). The previous $1.3M appropriation from the Water Fund also included the associated $13,000 for APP. The total amount being requested is $2,017,100, which will leave $3.2M available and unappropriated in the Light & Power Reserves. 3. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP). A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnerships Fund. Ordinance No. 070, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 Community Block Grant (CDBG), Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and CDBG Unanticipated Program Revenue Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. Ordinance No. 071, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018. City of Fort Collins Page 4 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 Regarding Civil Infractions. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, removes the notification requirement for violations of Chapter 19 to allow Code Compliance Inspectors the flexibility to issue immediate citations for all properties, includes some identified and sustained egregious or chronic offenders of the nuisance code. Civil infractions are heard under the approved Municipal Court Rules. On Second Reading, the Ordinance amends the heading for Chapter 19, Article V, to read “Civil Infractions” instead of “Rules for Civil Infractions” to avoid any confusion with the Municipal Court Rules. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2018 Annexing Property Known as the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, annexes an area of approximately 0.862 acres in southwest Fort Collins. The property is situated on the southwest corner of the South Taft Hill Road and West County Road 38E intersection. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on the consent agenda on April 17, 2018. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this Agenda. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, zones the property included in the Aweida Annexation into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2018, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, amends the Election Code to clarify that expenditures for political advertising includes internet advertising; amend deadlines for write-in candidates, nomination petitions, withdrawals and campaign reports; and adopt Code language to align with the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The Code amendments will also require candidates and committees to keep samples of public communications and revise the definition for independent expenditures. Between First and Second Reading, the Ordinance has been amended to change the deadline for political committees or issues committees to file a termination report from sixty days to seventy days after the election. This deadline change will align the requirement for termination reports with the date all final reports are due. 8. Items Relating to Poudre River Whitewater Park Fundraising. A. Resolution 2018-061 Recognizing Revenues Received from Private Fundraising and Finding Substantial Satisfaction of Conditions on Prior Appropriations for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. The purpose of this item is to acknowledge receipt of the full amount of fundraising dollars required to release expenditure of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) funds appropriated for the project under Ordinance No. 058, 2018, and to appropriate additional fundraising dollars secured for the Whitewater Park Project. City of Fort Collins Page 5 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $1,477,370 of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, this item will authorize the transfer of $14,774, one percent of the appropriated funds, from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. This project will construct Suniga Road to the City’s four-lane arterial roadway standards between North College Avenue and Blondel Street as identified on the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements include raised, protected bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, utility infrastructure, roadway improvements, and landscaped medians and parkways. The project will complement the existing section of Suniga Road, providing connectivity for surrounding developments from North College Avenue to Redwood Street. This project was approved during the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Parking Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities for the Art in Public Places Program. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $359,917 of additional funds from Parking Reserves into the capital project fund to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology project and to appropriate 1% of the project to Art in Public Places. The Project includes installing sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots (the “Project”). This Project will allow Parking Services to collect occupancy and turnover rate data to improve management of downtown parking. The sensors will link to the FC Parking application (app) and show where available parking spaces are located. Phase I of the Project was completed in 2017 and installed the sensor and payment technology in the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure. Finds for the remainder of the Project include: $750k in General Fund (appropriated in 2017 for this purpose as a part of Ordinance No. 154, 2017); 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3 ($84,692, and $90,083); and Parking Fund Reserves. The total estimated cost for the Project is $1.2M. Installation of parking sensors in the Old Town Parking Structure and the Civic Center Parking Structure has been initiated with the previously appropriated funds. The additional funds are necessary to complete the on-street and parking lot portion of the Project. The anticipated completion date for the Project is by the end of 2018. 11. Items Relating to Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2018, Reappropriating Funds Previously Appropriated in 2017 but not Expended and not Encumbered in 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Combined Regional Information Systems Project. B. Resolution 2018-062 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the City of Loveland for the Purpose of Sharing in the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project. C. Resolution 2018-063 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution from TriTech Software Systems. The purpose of this item is to purchase a public safety software solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). CRISP is a regional partnership with other Larimer County public safety agencies and provides a reliable public safety software solution that allows regional City of Fort Collins Page 6 agencies to share police and fire data, manage incidents and provide for redundancy and continuity of operations. The current system is scheduled for replacement. The City of Loveland is joining CRISP and with the addition of Loveland and other project changes, staff is also requesting an additional appropriation of $1.98 million with the understanding that all but $288K will be reimbursed from both CRISP partner and member agencies. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue From Bloomberg Philanthropies in the Light and Power Fund for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/On-Bill Financing Program. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $100,000 in grant revenues from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, into the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Enterprise fund for the purposes of developing and capitalizing the Utilities On-Bill Financing program (OBF). The OBF provides utility bill serviced loans for energy efficiency capital improvements, and the Bloomberg project within this program will focus on funding improvements to advance efficiency in rental properties. 13. Items Relating to Amending City Code, Chapter 17 - Miscellaneous Offenses. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles, and Disorderly Conduct. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. The purpose of this item is to amend certain Sections of Chapter 17 regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct to be consistent with state statutes; to amend Section 17-122 to make that section more specific to prohibit staying on medians in locations where safety issues arise given median width, traffic volumes, and/or traffic speed; and to eliminate Section 17-127 in its entirety pertaining to panhandling. 14. Resolution 2018-064 Approving an Art Project for the Riverside Bridge Project and Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project Pursuant to the Art in Public Places Program. The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account to commission an artist to create art for the Riverside Bridge Project. The expenditures of $35,000 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, and contingency for Carolyn Braaksma to create the art for the bridge wall along the trail. 15. Resolution 2018-065 Discontinuing the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee. The purpose of this item is to discontinue the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (the “Committee”) established by Resolution 2014-056 in July 2014. The Committee was created by Council to provide oversight and to be available to the City Manager to provide feedback concerning his administration of the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement. Section 3 of the 2014 Resolution provides that it was City Council's "intent that upon completion of the redevelopment of the commercial portion of the Mall Project," the Committee would be discontinued. The commercial development portion of the Mall is now complete. The Committee is, therefore, no longer needed. City of Fort Collins Page 7 16. Resolution 2018-066 Making Appointments to the Cultural Resources Board, Parks and Recreation Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, and The Women's Commission of the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this item is to appoint Liliane Francuz to fill a vacancy on the Cultural Resources Board due to the resignation of Amy Cerevan, Sam Houghteling to the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Scott Sinn, Anne Nelsen to the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignation of Bud Frick, and Melanie Potyondy to the Women’s Commission due to the resignation of Jennifer Harvey. 17. Resolution 2018-067 Reappointing Teresa Ablao as an Assistant Municipal Judge of the Fort Collins Municipal Court and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement. NEW ITEM ADDED JUNE 18, 2018 The purpose of this item is to reappoint Teresa Ablao as the Assistant Municipal Judge for the Fort Collins Municipal Court. The City Charter provides for the appointment of an Assistant Municipal Judge to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge. Teresa Ablao has served in this capacity since mid- 2012. Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Ms. Ablao be reappointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge. END CONSENT  CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.  STAFF REPORTS  COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS  CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Discussion Items The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ● Staff presentation (optional) ● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three 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.  NO DISCUSSION ITEMS City of Fort Collins Page 8  CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS  OTHER BUSINESS A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)  ADJOURNMENT Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 22, 2018 Adjourned Meeting, May 29, 2018 Special Meeting, June 5, 2018 Regular Meeting and the June 11, 2018 Adjourned Meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 22, 2018 Adjourned Council meeting, May 29, 2018 Special Council meeting, June 5, 2018 Regular Council meeting and the June 11, 2018 Adjourned Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 22, 2018 (PDF) 2. May 29, 2018 (PDF) 3. June 5, 2018 (PDF) 4. June 11, 2018 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 9 City of Fort Collins Page 267 May 22, 2018 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak ABSENT: Martinez, Cunniff Staff present: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron 1. Consider Joining the Amicus Curiae Brief to be Filed by Boulder County and Other Local Governments in Support of the Respondents in the Colorado Supreme Court Case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to consider authorizing the City Attorney to join Boulder County and other local governments in an amicus curiae brief (the “Amicus Brief”) to be filed in the Colorado Supreme Court case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez (“Martinez”), and a motion to direct staff action on the request. At issue are differing interpretations of the scope of authority delegated to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the “COGCC”) by the Colorado General Assembly in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the "Act"). The filing deadline for amicus briefs in support of the Respondents is May 25, 2018, and the deadline for the City to respond to Boulder County is May 23. Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Sustainability Manager, stated the Colorado Supreme Court case in question is about the interpretation of the authority of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act related to production of oil and gas resources and the protection of environment and wildlife resources. Archuleta reviewed the court rulings leading to this point and discussed the current case before the Supreme Court. Boulder County led the amicus brief preparation and the brief has since been joined by at least 14 other local governments with the position that the Court of Appeals decision was consistent with state and local government and regulatory agencies’ obligations, authorities, and regulatory powers. Archuleta stated the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the amicus brief summary and determined that the legal case is sound. Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director, stated the City recently developed a series of questions to think through numerous requests it receives to make commitments or join organizations. She reviewed the key questions in this case under the City’s Commitment Evaluation Process. John Gascoyne stated Councilmember Martinez was a highly compensated spokesperson for the oil and gas industry when the moratorium against fracking in the City limits was passed. He stated he would not be able to make an unbiased decision in this case. Jeremy Mack stated people his age and younger are worried about the fate of the planet. Fran Levine stated she works in Weld County and is surrounded by oil and gas wells constantly. She has been sick and children she treats have been suffering as a result of air pollution. Mary Elise Delphs discussed the negative effects of oil and gas drilling on health and the environment. 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: May 22, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 22, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 268 Sarah Hunt stated this case could have deleterious effects on the entire energy sector with overzealous protections. She opposed joining the amicus brief as citizens have not had a chance to participate. Jason Knebell stated Councilmembers work for the City of Fort Collins, not for the oil and gas industry. Gayla Martinez encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Elizabeth Hudetz encouraged Council to join the amicus brief and discussed air and environmental pollution. Tim Gosav stated this court decision is about health and safety and the City has an obligation to its residents to maintain health and safety in this community. Ted Walkup stated the younger generation is most at risk from short-sighted policies that value corporate profit over human health and safety. He encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Andy Spielman, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, stated air quality in the Northern Front Range is improving and opposed joining the amicus brief as the Martinez case demands as a prerequisite that there be zero impact to public health, safety, and welfare. He stated that is not consistent with the legislative intent and the COGCC is required to balance health, safety, and welfare. John Anderson stated Fort Collins should be leading this amicus brief given the public vote for the moratorium. Shane Davis stated oil and gas permitting is a rubber-stamping system which does not take public health, safety, and welfare into account. Forrest Carlson encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Joyce DeVaney encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Representative Joe Salazar stated a permit has never been denied due to balancing interests and encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Doug Henderson, Sierra Club of Colorado, encouraged Council to join the amicus brief. Nancy York encouraged Council to represent the citizens of Fort Collins and join the amicus brief. Andy Peterson stated he works in the oil and gas industry and noted this case will only address new wells and stated the air has gotten cleaner as more natural gas wells have been drilled and fracked. Kaitlyn (no last name given) stated the oil and gas industry does not support our economy. Michael Hayes, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, stated this case is about statutory interpretation and is not limited to the COGCC. He stated if the Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase “consistent with” is upheld, it could invalidate the regulations of any other state agency or local government. 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: May 22, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 22, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 269 Jim Vassallo stated the oil and gas industry is exporting record amounts of diesel and crude oil despite gasoline prices rising in this country. Mayor Troxell requested staff input regarding Mr. Hayes’ comments. City Attorney Daggett replied that is the sort of argument frequently made in legal disputes; however, in connection with this case, it may be taking the argument too far for the outcome of this case to broadly change the manner in which other statutes and local laws are interpreted. Councilmember Summers stated it is important to understand what is behind this case and the plaintiffs have stated their goal is to ban energy development in Colorado, and that would have a tremendous impact on Northern Colorado’s economy. He stated the COGCC already evaluates public health and environment concerns when considering regulating oil and gas operations. He discussed the positive impacts of the oil and gas industry in the area and stated air quality is improving. He requested staff input as to how many days of the year Fort Collins has an ozone level greater than 75 parts per billion. Archuleta replied 5 to 10 days are usually above that threshold, usually in the summer. Councilmember Summers stated the idea the oil and gas industry does not care about the environment is false and not borne out in fact. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stephens, that the City of Fort Collins join the amicus brief to be filed by Boulder County and other local governments. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated this item does not relate to oil and gas being good or bad, but rather to working with and supporting area governments. Councilmember Stephens thanked the citizens who spoke and stated she would support the motion as it clearly aligns with the City’s legislative policy agenda and elements of City Plan dealing with air quality. She stated protecting the health and safety of citizens should be the utmost priority for the City. Councilmember Overbeck stated he would support the motion as the brief aligns with the legislative policy agenda and City Plan. Mayor Troxell stated he would not support the motion as the brief is not likely to make any impact for Fort Collins. He stated the City should place its efforts on local environmental initiatives. RESULT: MOTION TO JOIN THE AMICUS BRIEF ADOPTED [3 TO 2] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 AYES: Stephens, Overbeck, Horak NAYS: Summers, Troxell ABSENT: Martinez, Cunniff 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: May 22, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 22, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 270 • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:52 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: May 22, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) City of Fort Collins Page 271 May 29, 2018 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Special Meeting – 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff Present: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron • DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Resolution 2018-053 Directing the City Manager or His Designees to Meet with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to Negotiate a Potential Agreement Regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is twofold: 1) to provide a status update on the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) in advance of the release of the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), anticipated for late June 2018; and 2) to consider a resolution that would direct the City Manager and/or his designees to meet with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) to seek to and to engage in negotiations regarding the City’s key remaining concerns and issues related to NISP. Some of the City’s key concerns regarding NISP’s impacts, as expressed in previous Council resolutions, have not been adequately addressed to date. NISP continues to make progress toward receiving all necessary permits and approvals to ultimately be constructed and operated as currently proposed. Meanwhile, the City’s ability to influence the project through participation in permitting processes is diminishing. Negotiating with Northern Water may provide a means to address some of the City’s remaining concerns. Staff is requesting authorization to negotiate with Northern Water regarding NISP where mutual interests may be addressed. Any draft agreement(s) would be presented to Council for its review and approval. Carol Webb, Utilities Deputy Director, introduced the item and provided opening remarks. Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Project Engineer, detailed the essential services provided by the River, a shared resource and described the NISP project and its two proposed reservoirs, Glade Reservoir located near the mouth of the canyon, and Galeton Reservoir located northeast of Ault. NISP would divert about 40,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Poudre on average. Glade Reservoir would be filled by diverting the higher flows during May and June during average and wet years and by moving agricultural water and replacing those water rights with water from the South Platte River. Jokerst noted the City of Fort Collins does not have any approval authority in this project; it is a stakeholder. He outlined the permitting process for the project to this point. Jennifer Shanahan, Natural Resources Watershed Specialist, discussed recent changes to NISP operations and key elements of the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, and how they link to the City’s concerns. Recent major modifications have alleviated some concerns. For example, the pipeline connecting Glade Reservoir and Horsetooth Reservoir no longer exists and there is no exchange of water with Horsetooth. She discussed the Conveyance Refinement Plan and Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, noting the Peak Flow Operations Plan has changed in a positive manner. The City is awaiting information regarding water quality and its ability to discharge water into the Poudre River. Also, comments related to air quality and climate change have yet to receive a 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: May 29, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 29, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 272 response. She discussed the key remaining concerns and recommendations for reducing the risk and potential adverse impacts to the City. Jokerst stated the City’s participation in the commenting process has led to a better project than was proposed ten years ago; however, the City’s ability to further influence this project and lead to better outcomes is diminishing, largely because the project is much more refined than it was in years past. He stated the City’s options include doing nothing, opposing NISP outright, continuing to comment in the public process, or negotiate. Staff is recommending the City consider negotiation as it could lead to a better outcome. Karen Wagner stated this presentation did not convince her that negotiation would have any value in changing the ultimate outcome. She stated part of her concern is with research on the Thornton Northern project. She encouraged the City to consider the residents of its Growth Management Area and the impacts to the City of future land use. Brad Wind, Northern Water General Manager, discussed the improvements and enhancements to which the NISP participants have agreed. He requested Council adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Cunniff asked if constraints exist on the negotiations. Jokerst replied staff can negotiate additional improvements; the Resolution does not mention what the City may give up in exchange. Councilmember Cunniff asked how the confidential negotiations would proceed. City Attorney Daggett replied there would be significant limits on how staff communicates with Council and how Northern staff could communicate with their Board. The negotiating meetings would not be public, and any agreement would ultimately be presented to Council for consideration and a public meeting. Councilmember Martinez asked if previous conversations with Northern have solved issues. Jokerst replied some issues have been resolved wholly, some partially, and others have yet to be addressed. Councilmember Overbeck asked about the expense of negotiations. Jokerst replied the cost is reliant upon the negotiated outcome. Immediate costs include staff time. Councilmember Stephens asked about potential impacts to residents in the Growth Management Area. Jokerst replied there will be construction-related impacts such as air quality emissions, dust, and traffic. He noted proposed pipelines could also potentially have an impact. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to adopt Resolution 2018-053. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted any agreement would still need to come before Council and a public process in that forum. He stated he cannot foresee Council expressing support for the project at its current size and negotiations cannot hurt. Councilmember Overbeck stated he will not support the motion citing concern about high costs and the lack of assurance this will improve the project. 1.2 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: May 29, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 29, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 273 Councilmember Stephens thanked staff for their work and thanked the Water Board and others for their input. She stated negotiations could lead to further project improvements. Councilmember Martinez stated negotiations and conversations cannot hurt. Councilmember Cunniff stated it is obvious Council values the River. The question is what the best way is to meet the City’s desire for further improvements. Mayor Troxell stated he will support the motion to allow Fort Collins to be part of negotiations. He thanked Northern for its continued willingness to work with the City. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated adaptive management is one topic that may be discussed. He stated it would be useful for Council to receive a memo regarding how it and citizens can be updated on NISP negotiations. City Manager Atteberry replied this Resolution speaks to regular update intervals. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2018-053 ADOPTED [5 TO 2] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ken Summers, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Troxell, Horak NAYS: Overbeck, Cunniff 2. Consideration of a Motion Authorizing Release of Records Withheld as Council Work Product. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider a motion authorizing release of records withheld as Council work product in response to a records request. City Attorney Daggett discussed the Judicial Watch document request and subsequent lawsuit seeking release of certain withheld records. The lawsuit has since been dismissed due to a 14-day negotiation period regarding potential release of those records. A batch of previously withheld documents is related to Council work product and Council will need to provide authorization to allow their release. Staff is recommending Council authorize the release of the records. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to authorize release of the documents that were not otherwise privileged and were withheld as Council work product in response to a records request made by Judicial Watch. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like a memo on which documents are considered Council work product and which are considered attorney-client privilege. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 1.2 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: May 29, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) May 29, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 274 • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.2 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: May 29, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) City of Fort Collins Page 275 June 5, 2018 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell Staff: Mihelich, Daggett, Coldiron • AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER Deputy City Manager Mihelich stated Item No. 11, Items Relating to the East Gateway Annexation, has been moved to discussion Item No. 17 and staff is recommending indefinite postponement of that item. Item No. 12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the East Gateway Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map, has been withdrawn from the agenda and Item No. 16, Resolution 2018-060 Rescinding Resolution 2018-041 and Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the East Gateway Annexation, has been added to the agenda. Deputy City Manager Mihelich also briefly discussed Item No. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Civil Infractions, as a good news item which will allow Code Enforcement officers to immediately write tickets for chronic offenders. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Deirdre Sullivan, La Familia Executive Director, thanked Council for CDBG appropriations and expressed appreciation for the CDBG Commission. Steve Kuehneman, CARE Housing Executive Director, thanked Council for CDBG appropriations and expressed appreciation for the CDBG Commission. Bill Miller, Fort Collins Audubon Society, expressed support for Item No. 13, Resolution 2018- 058 Designating City-Owned Properties Along the Cache la Poudre River as an Important Bird Area. Jeremy (no last name given) thanked Councilmembers Stephens, Overbeck, and Horak for supporting joining the amicus brief in the Martinez case. He discussed derogatory comments he stated were made by Councilmember Summers and urged Council to ban herbicide and pesticide use. Fulvia Serra, Homeless Gear Development Associate, thanked Council, the Social Sustainability Department, and the CDBG Commission for CDBG appropriations. Kaitlyn Young urged Council to ban the use of neonicotinoids in natural areas and in Fort Collins. She suggested implementing bat boxes for mosquito control. 1.3 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 276 Jim Becker, Partnership for Age Friendly Communities Director, thanked Council, Social Sustainability staff, and the CDBG Commission for CDBG appropriations. Nicholas Mouton requested an update regarding the lockers at the Mennonite Church and questioned why the process has taken so long. Jason Morgan, A Little Help Larimer County Director, thanked Council for CDBG appropriations. Kristin Candella, Habitat for Humanity Director, thanked Council, Social Sustainability staff, and the CDBG Commission for CDBG appropriations. Jim Villalobos, Colorado Health Network, thanked Council for CDBG appropriations. Anne Lance, Teaching Tree Executive Director, thanked Council for CDBG appropriations. Courtney Carrick, Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center, thanked Council and Social Sustainability staff for CDBG appropriations. Lauren Whynott, Respite Care Development Director, thanked Council for its funding support. Donna Holmes, Crossroads Safehouse, thanked Council for its support and funding. Mike Sollenberger, DMA Plaza Board President, expressed appreciation for CDBG funding. Kari Clark, Crossroads Safehouse, thanked Council and the CDBG Commission for CDBG appropriations. Cathy Kipp, Poudre School District Board of Education, discussed Initiative 93, which will help increase education funding in Colorado. She requested Council support the Initiative and its placement on the ballot. Joan LaBelle, Disabled Resources Services Executive Director, thanked Council for funding support. Terry Francl stated prairie dogs are overtaking a portion of the Fossil Creek Natural Area adjacent to houses. John Dellenbach expressed concern regarding prairie dogs coming into private property near the Fossil Creek Natural Area. Eric Sutherland stated there was no information related to authorizing debt for the broadband utility in the minutes of the April 3, 2018 Council meeting. He stated that information was included in the Electric Utility Enterprise Board meeting minutes and discussed the City Charter regulation that all actions of Council shall be adopted at a regular City Council meeting. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Mayor Pro Tem Horak summarized the citizen comments. 1.3 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 277 City Attorney Daggett stated staff is aware of Mr. Sutherland’s disagreement with the process used to adopt the broadband bond ordinance; however, it is the opinion of bond counsel that it was properly adopted. She noted Mr. Sutherland has filed a lawsuit in Larimer County District Court and Council will be receiving updates regarding that litigation. Deputy City Manager Mihelich stated he will work with Natural Areas staff to investigate the prairie dog situation and will report back. He stated he will host a stakeholder meeting as well. Councilmember Cunniff stated he has met with citizens who are concerned about prairie dog eradication and suggested relocation is a good compromise; however, staff has yet to provide a good plan for finding appropriate property. Deputy City Manager Mihelich replied he will include that information in the report. Councilmember Summers asked about the policy for maintaining a 300-foot buffer from homes near natural areas. Deputy City Manager Mihelich replied that is a management policy to be implemented by staff and prairie dog colonies are examined annually to ensure they are not straying into that area. Councilmember Stephens thanked the non-profit representatives who spoke and expressed appreciation for the organizations. She also thanked the members of the CDBG Commission for their work on appropriation recommendations. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Legislative Review Committee has taken a position on Initiative 93. Deputy City Manager Mihelich replied he will provide Council with an update. • CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Horak opened the public hearings for Item No. 7, Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP), No. 9, Items Relating to the Aweida Annexation, and No. 10, Items Relating to Zoning the Aweida Annexation. Kaitlyn Young withdrew Item No. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Civil Infractions, from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. RESULT: CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell 1.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 278 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 1 and May 15, 2018 Regular Council Meetings and the May 8, 2018 Adjourned Council Meeting. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 1 and May 15, 2018 Regular Council meetings and the May 8, 2018 Adjourned Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2018, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. (Adopted) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2018, adopts a variety of revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code that are generally housekeeping and routine in nature that have been identified since the last update in May 2017. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2018, Authorizing the Establishment of a Revolving Line of Credit to be Paid Solely with Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Funds for a Six-Year Period in the Amount of up to Five Million Dollars Per Draw to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and Programs in Accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development and Approving Related Documents. (Adopted) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2018, renews the current Line of Credit (LOC) established in 2012 by the City on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2018. The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority believes it would be financially beneficial for the DDA and the community as a whole to renew the Line of Credit with First National Bank for a six-year period through adoption of Ordinance No. 066, 2018. The Line of Credit will be used to finance DDA projects and programs. The Ordinance has been amended between first and second reading to make the Ordinance recitals correspond to those in Resolution 2018-046. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2018, Approving the Waiver of Certain Fees for the Oakridge Crossing Affordable Housing Project. (Adopted) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2018, authorizes an affordable housing fee waiver request for Oakridge Crossing and a refund of waived fees already paid. Oakridge Crossing, LLLP has requested that certain development and capital improvement expansion fees be waived for qualifying units at Oakridge Crossing, an affordable senior community. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which fee waivers may be requested and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for households whose income falls at or below 30% of the area median income of all City residents. Oakridge Crossing LLLP is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $90,923 for the 13 qualifying units at Oakridge Crossing. Council Finance Committee supports this request and suggested using funds from the Affordable Housing Capital Fund in the Community Capital Improvement Program fund for the refund. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2018, Designating the McMillen-Patterson Property, 121 North Grant Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2018-034. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2018, designates the McMillen- Patterson Property, 121 North Grant Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Susan Hoskinson, is requesting the designation. 1.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 279 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund for the Light and Power New Circuits Project. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds from Light & Power Reserves to serve the newly annexed Water Treatment Facility ($1,300,000) and to meet capacity needs at the East Harmony Industrial Park ($480,000) and the Southwest Residential Area ($230,000). The appropriation also includes $7,100 for Art in Public Places (APP). The previous $1.3M appropriation from the Water Fund also included the associated $13,000 for APP. The total amount being requested is $2,017,100, which will leave $3.2M available and unappropriated in the Light & Power Reserves. 7. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP). (Adopted) A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2018-054 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, and the City’s Human Services Program. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. C. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnerships Fund. The purpose of this item is to approve funding recommendations of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process and appropriate federal dollars. Resolution 2018-054 will complete the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for allocating $5,205,993 in City financial resources to affordable housing and public facility projects, human service programs and administration of the programs. Ordinance No. 070, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and CDBG Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. Ordinance No. 071, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. 8. Items Relating to the Aweida Annexation. (Adopted) A. Resolution 2018-055 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Aweida Annexation. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2018, Annexing the Property Known as the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex an area of approximately 0.862 acres in southwest Fort Collins. The property is situated on the southwest corner of the South Taft Hill Road and West County Road 38E intersection. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on the consent agenda on April 17, 2018. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this Agenda. 9. Items Relating to Zoning the Aweida Annexation. (Adopted) A. Resolution 2018-056 Amending the City’s Structure Plan Map. This Ordinance is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2018-034. 1.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 280 B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the Aweida Annexation into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. A Council amendment of the City Structure Plan Map is necessary to allow for the Aweida Annexation to be zoned L-M-N. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the East Gateway Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. (Withdrawn) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2018-034. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the East Gateway Annexation into the General Commercial (G-C), Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), and Industrial (I) zone districts. 11. Resolution 2018-058 Designating City-Owned Properties Along the Cache la Poudre River as an Important Bird Area. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to designate City-owned properties within the Growth Management Area that adjoin the Cache la Poudre River as an Important Bird Area (IBA). An IBA is defined by the National Audubon Society as a site that provides essential habitat to one or more species of birds during some portion of the year. This designation conveys no legal authority over land ownership or its uses and management. This designation would support City educational initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and enjoyment of Poudre River bird habitat. It may also prove useful when seeking additional funding (i.e., grant applications) for habitat restoration projects. 12. Resolution 2018-059 Appointing Christine Pardee to the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appoint Christine Pardee to fill a vacancy on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the resignation of Emily Heinz, whose term was set to expire on December 31, 2021. In December 2017, Mayor Troxell, and Councilmember Ray Martinez interviewed applicants solicited in the fall of 2017 and identified Ms. Pardee as an alternate if a vacancy arose during the year. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Cunniff expressed appreciation for Item No. 13, Resolution 2018-058 Designating City-Owned Properties Along the Cache la Poudre River as an Important Bird Area. Councilmember Overbeck expressed appreciation for Item No. 13, Resolution 2018-058 Designating City-Owned Properties Along the Cache la Poudre River as an Important Bird Area, and thanked Bill Miller and the Audubon Society for their work. Councilmember Stephens commented on Item No. 7, Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community 1.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 281 Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP), and thanked the CDBG Commission members, Affordable Housing Board members, and community non-profits for their work. Mayor Pro Tem Horak commended staff and the CDBG Commission members for their work on the competitive process appropriation allocations. • STAFF REPORTS Tim Kemp, Capital Construction Projects Manager, discussed the Horsetooth and College intersection improvements and benefits. He stated nearly half of the project funding is from two federal grants. He detailed the project phasing and construction schedule. Councilmember Martinez asked what media sources are being used to update the public on this topic. Kemp replied Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, Spotlight on fcgov.com, e-newsletters, mailers, and message boards have been used. He stated he would follow-up with the Communication Public Involvement Office regarding the frequency of the placement of these items on Nextdoor. Councilmember Overbeck asked how area businesses have been informed of the improvements. Kemp replied the immediate intersection businesses have been aware of the improvements for some time as right-of-way purchases and temporary easements have been necessary. Local businesses have received an informational poster and additional temporary signage is allowed during construction. Councilmember Cunniff asked if northbound Mason will have two left-hand turn lanes onto Horsetooth. Kemp replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Cunniff asked if there is an impact on left turns from southbound Mason into the northern driveway of the large parking lot. Kemp replied there will be no changes to that drive. • COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Stephens reported on the Small Business of the Year breakfast sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and the Islamic Center Ramadan fast-breaking ceremony. Councilmember Martinez reported on the recent Open Streets event. Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported North I-25 did not received a recent federal grant but is working on an application for a new grant. He stated Platte River Power Authority had a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building at its current site, noting it will be LEED certified. He stated the PRPA Board would like to consider a resolution on its July agenda relating to a 100% renewable energy goal. He reported on the Campus Connections session with Code Compliance and Mediation staff and the Parks and Recreation meeting on the City Park refresh. He noted some citizens were concerned about a change in character for the park. 1.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 282 • DISCUSSION ITEMS 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2018, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. (Adopted on First Reading) The purpose of this item is to amend the Election Code to clarify that expenditures for political advertising includes internet advertising; amend deadlines for write-in candidates, nomination petitions, withdrawals and campaign reports; and adopt Code language to align with the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The Code amendments will also require candidates and committees to keep samples of public communications and revise the definition for independent expenditures. City Clerk Coldiron stated the Election Code Committee has been meeting monthly and summarized the Code change recommendations. Changes address the value of campaign ads on websites, deadline additions and changes, the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and campaign materials and independent expenditures. Additional items still being considered by the Committee include “paid for by” statements on advertisements and redistricting. Marge Norskog supported the Election Code changes to maintain election integrity. She requested Council encourage the Election Code Committee to include additional changes prior to the 2019 election: requiring “paid for by” statements on public communications and expanding the City Clerk’s duties to clarify what action is expected of the Clerk to fulfill the responsibility to assess if a report should be deemed incomplete or inconsistent. Robbie Moreland thanked Council and the Election Code Committee for being responsive to concerns for more election transparency. She requested Council consider adding a requirement that the City Clerk’s Office be included on campaign or committee mailing lists so the City Clerk can assure immediate compliance with the Code. She also encouraged requiring “paid for by” statements, instituting specific consequences for violations of the Election Code to include late, incorrect, or misleading committee financial reports, and auditing each committee report as it is submitted. She suggested a trained citizen board could be commissioned to conduct said audit. Jodie Deschane thanked the Election Code Committee for its progress and encouraged additional changes to ensure the future integrity of elections and elected officials. Councilmember Stephens thanked the citizens who spoke and stated the proposed changes will add transparency to the election process. She encouraged Council to adopt the amendments and requested the City Attorney address the “paid for by” statements. City Attorney Daggett replied options are being analyzed and staff is planning to provide a proposal for the Committee at its July meeting. Councilmember Stephens stated the Committee may look at a budget offer for analyzing reports by the City Clerk’s Office. Deputy City Manager Mihelich confirmed a budget offer is being prepared. Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Ordinance No. 077, 2018, on First Reading. Councilmember Overbeck expressed appreciation for the involved citizens. Councilmember Cunniff thanked the citizens and staff for their diligence. 1.3 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 283 Councilmember Martinez thanked the citizens and commended the Election Code Committee. Councilmember Stephens thanked staff for their work and accommodation of overseas voters. Mayor Pro Tem Horak thanked all involved parties. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 077, 2018, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell 14. Resolution 2018-060 Rescinding Resolution 2018-041 and Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the East Gateway Annexation. (Adopted) On May 1, 2018, Council adopted Resolution 2018-041 initiating annexation proceedings for the East Gateway Annexation and scheduling a hearing date of June 5, 2018 for the proposed annexation. It has subsequently been determined that certain notices required by the Municipal Annexation Act were inadvertently not given as required. The statutory time periods for required published and mailed notices of the proposed annexation are such that the annexation process must be re-initiated to allow these notices to be given in advance of a rescheduled hearing on July 17, 2018. The purpose of this item is to rescind Resolution 2018-041 and re-initiate annexation proceedings for the East Gateway Annexation, containing 1.77-acres, into the City of Fort Collins. The annexation is generally located northeast of the Interstate 25 and East Mulberry Street interchange. The annexation area includes three parcels of land that consist of railroad-owned property, a strip of land on the western edge of the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park, and a triangular-shaped parcel owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The requested zoning for this annexation is a combination of General Commercial (C-G), Industrial (I), and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map designations. The surrounding properties are a mixture of residential and commercial land uses. The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the annexation petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by state law. City Attorney Daggett provided an overview of the item stating some required notices were not sent; therefore, in order to allow for that to occur, this Resolution restarts the process and a new hearing will occur in July. Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to adopt Resolution 2018-060. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like discussions regarding an IGA for transition expenses to occur with the County. 1.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 284 RESULT: RESOLUTION 2018-060 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ken Summers, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell 15. Items Relating to the East Gateway Annexation. (Postponed Indefinitely) Staff requests the Resolution and Ordinance be postponed indefinitely due to a failure to provide notice as required in the Municipal Annexation Act. A. Resolution 2018-057 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the East Gateway Annexation. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2018, Annexing the Property Known as the East Gateway Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex 1.77 acres of land consisting of three properties into the City of Fort Collins. The properties are located approximately ¼ mile northeast of the Interstate 25 and East Mulberry Street interchange. The annexation will create the East Mulberry Enclave encompassing the East Mulberry Corridor. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on May 1, 2018. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this Agenda. Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 075, 2018 indefinitely. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 075, 2018, POSTPONED INDEFINITELY [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to postpone consideration of Resolution 2018-057 indefinitely. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2018-057 POSTPONED INDEFINITELY [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell • CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Civil Infractions. (Adopted on First Reading) The purpose of this item is to remove the notification requirement for violations of Chapter 19 of the City Code to allow Code Compliance Inspectors the flexibility to issue immediate citations for all properties, including some identified and sustained egregious or chronic offenders of the nuisance code. 1.3 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 285 Kaitlyn Young questioned whether the City is consistent with the Supreme Court’s directives for the applicability of the Colorado rules for Municipal Court procedures and whether the City has the authority to design and implement its own penal system under home rule. She asked why the rules of civil procedure are not being used for civil infractions. City Attorney Daggett stated the rules of civil procedure do not apply to civil infractions, which are enforcement matters handled in accordance with City Code provisions. She stated she could provide additional information prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City can set its own penalties under home rule. City Attorney Daggett replied these issues were reviewed when Council adopted the ordinance that initially adopted the existing civil infraction process and she does not believe there is an issue with the City’s authority to do these types of procedures. Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Ordinance No. 072, 2018, on First Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed the favorable citizen comments made at the Code Compliance meeting. Councilmember Summers noted this would address chronic offenses. Deputy City Manager Mihelich stated staff is using a one-year calendar for addressing violations. City Attorney Daggett noted enforcement officers are granted latitude to evaluate circumstances. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2018, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell • OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested the Election Code Committee consider an orientation for candidates and committees to address processes and requirements. Councilmember Stephens stated that has not specifically been discussed but supported the idea. Councilmember Martinez reported a fallen utility pole on Timberline between Caribou and Harmony and asked that it be removed. • ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adjourn to 6:00 PM, Monday, June 11, 2018, for the purpose of conducting mid-year performance reviews for the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, and for such other business as may come before the Council. 1.3 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) June 5, 2018 City of Fort Collins Page 286 RESULT: MOTION TO ADJOURN TO JUNE 11, 2018, ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Summers, Overbeck, Cunniff, Horak ABSENT: Troxell The meeting adjourned at 7:38 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.3 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: June 5, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) City of Fort Collins Page 287 June 11, 2018 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Special Meeting – 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Summers, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff Present: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron 1. Executive Session Authorized. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to go into executive session, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code and Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(f)(I), for the purpose of conducting mid-year performance reviews of the City Manager, the City Attorney and Chief Municipal Judge. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Summers, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:21 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.4 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: June 11, 2018 (6896 : minutes-5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/11) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Tim McCollough, Light and Power Operations Manager Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund for the Light and Power New Circuits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, appropriates funds from Light & Power Reserves to serve the newly annexed Water Treatment Facility ($1,300,000) and to meet capacity needs at the East Harmony Industrial Park ($480,000) and the Southwest Residential Area ($230,000). The appropriation also includes $7,100 for Art in Public Places (APP). The previous $1.3M appropriation from the Water Fund also included the associated $13,000 for APP. The total amount being requested is $2,017,100, which will leave $3.2M available and unappropriated in the Light & Power Reserves. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 069, 2018 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 31 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Tim McCollough, Light and Power Operations Manager Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light and Power Fund for the Light and Power New Circuits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds from Light & Power Reserves to serve the newly annexed Water Treatment Facility ($1,300,000) and to meet capacity needs at the East Harmony Industrial Park ($480,000) and the Southwest Residential Area ($230,000). The appropriation also includes $7,100 for Art in Public Places (APP). The previous $1.3M appropriation from the Water Fund also included the associated $13,000 for APP. The total amount being requested is $2,017,100, which will leave $3.2M available and unappropriated in the Light & Power Reserves. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This appropriation request was reviewed at the Council Finance Committee (CFC) on May 21, 2018. Feedback from CFC has been incorporated into this Agenda Item Summary. The project areas can be viewed here: https://arcg.is/1Of1HL Water Treatment Facility After experiencing several unscheduled outages in the last few years, the Water Treatment Facility was annexed into the City earlier this year to allow Fort Collins Light & Power to provide more reliable electric service to the facility. Offer 6.26 in the 2017/18 Budget appropriated $1.3M in the Water Fund for this purpose. Offer 43.1 in the Water Fund included the associated 1% appropriation for APP. An identical appropriation is now needed in the Light & Power Fund for the Electric Utility to spend service fees and Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) to build the infrastructure to serve the facility. Unanticipated revenues in the Light & Power (501) Fund will be provided by billing the Water Fund for actual charges associated with providing the necessary infrastructure to serve the facility (not to exceed $1,300,000). Although the primary purpose and justification of this budget offer from 2017/18 is for electric service reliability improvements, the Water Treatment Facility’s annual electric service cost will decrease approximately 3.5% when transferred from Xcel Energy to Fort Collins Utilities Light & Power. This outcome creates additional benefits for ratepayers by lowering the associated service costs. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 East Harmony Industrial Park Light & Power has capacity contracts with three large industrial customers in the East Harmony Industrial Park area. Customer Capacity Contract Amount [MVA] Customer #1 20.0 Customer #2 27.2 Customer #3 10.6 Total 57.8 Although there are contracts in place for 57.8 MVA of electric capacity, Light & Power has installed only 37.5 MVA of capacity to date. This has been adequate to meet demands by these customers historically. In 2017, due to load growth, the customer load demand in this industrial complex exceeded the installed circuit capacity. In addition, these customers have indicated additional load growth projections through 2021. These historic loads and future load projections are detailed in Table 1. Two additional circuits are needed now to fulfill the capacity obligations in this area. These circuits were not anticipated in 2018 in the Light & Power Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and need to be accelerated and constructed in 2018 to meet the customer requests. There are currently available prior appropriations to fund one of the two circuits. An additional appropriation of $484,800.00 is required from Reserves to fund the second of the two required circuits ($480,000 for the circuit and $4,800 for APP). As these are already established capacity contracts, Light & Power will not receive new Plant Improvement Fees (PIFs) to build the infrastructure. Table 1: East Harmony Industrial Park Load and Circuit Capacity Circuit Number Current Installed Capacity 2016 Loads 2017 Loads 2018 Loads (Projected) 2019 Loads (Projected) 2021 Loads (Projected) Future Capacity 502 6,000 5,923 6,403 6,523 6,643 6,883 6,000 516 6,000 5,066 6,411 7,411 7,411 7,411 6,000 522 6,000 6,655 6,128 6,258 6,388 6,648 6,000 532 6,000 5,459 6,545 7,545 7,545 7,545 6,000 536 1,500 1,305 4,043 4,279 4,515 4,987 - 542 6,000 5,317 5,176 5,373 5,570 5,964 6,000 562 6,000 5,640 4,761 4,997 5,233 5,705 6,000 552 6,000 572 6,000 Total 37,500 35,365 39,467 42,386 43,305 45,143 48,000 Light & Power has been constructing new underground duct banks to the East Harmony Industrial Complex in 2017 and 2018 in anticipation of these future circuit needs. Southwest Residential Circuit Recent residential load growth in the southwest area of Fort Collins is creating overload conditions on the existing circuits out of the substations serving this area. Four existing circuits serving this area were loaded to full capacity during the peak summer season in 2017. Constructing a new circuit (828) to serve this area will provide load relief to the existing circuits. This project was planned and budgeted for construction in 2017, but the original budget estimates in the 2016 20-year Capital Improvement Plan underestimated the costs of this circuit. Design is now complete and an additional appropriation is necessary to complete the circuit. The original budget was identified as $0.26M and final design Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 estimates the construction to cost $0.49M. An additional appropriation of $232,300 is required from Reserves to fund the circuit ($230,000 for the circuit and $2,300 for APP). CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS These circuits will be funded from Available Reserves in the Light & Power Enterprise Fund. The Water Fund will be invoiced for actual charges which will be paid through the associated appropriation made in the 2017-18 Budget. Reserve Balance Available Reserves $9.5M Anticipated Revenue $1.3M Available $10.8M Less: 2010 Bond Defeasance $4.0M Billing System $1.6M Available $5.2M Less Requested: Water Treatment Facility $1.30M East Harmony Industrial Park $0.48M Southwest Residential Circuit $0.23M Remaining Available Fund Balance $3.2M BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This will be presented to the Energy Board at its next regular meeting on June 16, 2018. PUBLIC OUTREACH Light & Power staff have been in communication with the affected customers. No other public outreach has been done. The circuit to the Water Treatment Facility will be installed in an existing right-of-way and existing utility easements. The circuit on Harmony will be installed through the new duct bank that was just installed under the railroad and along Harmony Road. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Finance Committee Agenda Item Summary, May 2, 2018 (PDF) 2.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 069, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE LIGHT AND POWER FUND FOR THE LIGHT AND POWER NEW CIRCUITS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City’s Electric Utility is preparing to complete construction of three new service connections and capacity upgrades to accommodate a recent annexation and customer load growth, referred to as the “Light and Power New Circuit Project”; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the City Council approved annexation of the City’s water treatment facility into the City’s municipal boundaries through Ordinance Nos. 023, 025, 027, and 029, 2018, which was needed for the City’s Electric Utility to establish a connection and improve the reliability of electric service to the facility; and WHEREAS, the 2017/2018 budget included appropriation of $1.3 million in the Water Utility Enterprise Fund to cover service fees and the cost to build the new electric service connection to the Water Treatment facility; and WHEREAS, Utility Services staff recommends appropriating $1.3 million in the Electric Utility Enterprise Fund (Light and Power Fund) to allow the Electric Utility to spend service fees received from the Water Utility and to construct the new service connection to the Water Treatment facility; and WHEREAS, Utility Services staff further recommends appropriating $480,000 in the Light and Power Fund to build additional electric circuit capacity to satisfy current commitments to deliver electric service capacity under agreements with industrial customers in the East Harmony Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, Utility Services staff further recommends appropriating an additional $230,000 in the Light and Power fund to cover increased costs associated with improving electric circuit capacity in substations experiencing accelerated residential load growth in southwest Fort Collins (the “Southwest Residential Area Project”); and WHEREAS, prior to completion of the design for the Southwest Residential Area Project, the 2017 budget estimate was $260,000; final design estimates are currently $490,000, requiring appropriation of an additional $230,000 to complete 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; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the 2.2 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Ordinance No. 069, 2018 (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation) -2- funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Light and Power New Circuit Project involves total estimated construction cost of more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations (qualified appropriation amount is equal to $710,000 since APP was previously appropriated and transferred on the $1.3M in the 2017/18 Budget) to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places (APP) program; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and ratepayers of Fort Collins and serves the utility purpose of improving water and electric service reliability and controlling cost of service increases; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Light and Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power 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 the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from prior year reserves in the Light and Power Fund the sum of TWO MILLION SEVENTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,017,100) as follows: Water Treatment Facility Project $1,300,000 East Harmony Industrial Park Project 480,000 Southwest Residential Area 230,000 Art in Public Places Project (Artwork) 5,538 Art in Public Places Project (transfer to Cultural Services Fund for APP Maintenance & Operations) 1,562 TOTAL $2,017,100 Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($1,562) is authorized for transfer to the Art in Public Places Projects from the Light and Power Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. 2.2 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Ordinance No. 069, 2018 (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 2.2 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Ordinance No. 069, 2018 (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Adam Molzer, Grant & Community Partnership Coordinator Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnerships Fund. Ordinance No. 070, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 Community Block Grant (CDBG), Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and CDBG Unanticipated Program Revenue Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. Ordinance No. 071, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of both Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 070, 2018 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 071, 2018 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 38 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Adam Molzer, Grant & Community Partnership Coordinator Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Completion of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Federal HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2018-054 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, and the City’s Human Services Program. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. C. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the HOME Investment Partnerships Fund. The purpose of this item is to approve funding recommendations of the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process and appropriate federal dollars. Resolution 2018-054 will complete the 2018 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for allocating $5,205,993 in City financial resources to affordable housing and public facility projects, human service programs and administration of the programs. Ordinance No. 070, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and CDBG Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. Ordinance No. 071, 2018 appropriates the City’s FY2018 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and HOME Unanticipated Program Revenue from FY2017. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and both Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Resolution 2018-054 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG, HOME, AHF and HSP funds for the 2018 program year. CDBG and HOME are federal dollars allocated through HUD. AHF and HSP funds are allocated from the General Fund (GF) and Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG). In 2018 the total available dollar amount is $5,205,993. The following table shows available dollars in each funding category: 3.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 FY2018 Funding Categories Funding Source Amount FY2018 Housing (combined federal and City funds) $3,970,661 FY2018 Human (Public) Service (combined federal and City funds) $925,083 FY 2018 Planning and Administration (federal funds) $310,249 Total $5,205,993 Available federal money for FY2018 is $3,922,540. These funds are sourced from 6 categories designated by HUD, including: FY2018 Entitlement Grants (CDBG and HOME – new funding), FY2017 Unanticipated Program Revenue (CDBG and HOME – new funding), Prior Year Funds (CDBG and HOME – reappropriated). Unanticipated Revenue Funds include repayments from loans issued for rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, acquisition and development. Prior Year Funds represent previously Council-committed funds that are available for reallocation in the housing category only. The Prior Year Funds (CDBG and HOME, FY2017) are available to contract during the current program year, HUD FY2017. The FY2017 HUD regulations allow for the following distribution:  15% of CDBG program income received in the prior year for Human (Public) Services  10% of HOME program income received during the program year to be used for planning and program administration HUD regulations also require a 15% set-aside of the FY2018 HOME Entitlement Grant ($127,005), for agencies certified as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). Fort Collins currently has one CHDO, Habitat for Humanity, which is recommended to receive $80,000 of this set-aside for their FY2018 Poudre Build project. Total federal contribution to the Housing category is $3,445,614. The maximum limit allowed by HUD regulations in the Human (Public) Service category for the CDBG Entitlement grant and current year CDBG Program Income (received 10/01/17 thru 03/31/18) is 15%. Total federal contribution to the Human (Public) Service category is $166,677: $160,982 from the FY2018 CDBG Entitlement grant and $5,695 from CDBG FY2017 Unanticipated Program Income. HUD regulations allow a maximum of 20% of the CDBG Entitlement grant ($214,642) to be used for CDBG planning and program administration. HUD regulations allow a maximum of 10% of HOME Entitlement grant ($84,670) and HOME Unanticipated Revenue ($10,937) (received 10/01/17 thru 03/31/18) to be used for CDBG planning and program administration. Total federal contribution to the Planning and Program Administration category is $310,249. The following table provides a summary of 2018 federal funding sources for Housing, Human (Public) Service and Planning/Program Administration: 3.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 FEDERAL FUNDS Funding Source Total Funds Housing Human (Public) Service Planning/Admin FY18 CDBG Entitlement Grant $ 1,073,214 $ 697,590 $ 160,982 $ 214,642 FY17 Unanticipated Revenue CDBG $ 192,549 $ 186,854 $ 5,695 Prior Year CDBG Funds $ 904,747 $ 904,747 FY18 HOME Entitlement Grant $ 846,700 $ 762,030 $ 84,670 FY17 Unanticipated Revenue HOME $ 515,534 $ 504,597 $ 10,937 Prior Year HOME Funds $ 389,796 $ 389,796 TOTAL Federal Funds $ 3,922,540 $ 3,445,614 $ 166,677 $ 310,249 The City’s contribution to the Housing category is $525,047. The City’s contribution to the Human (Public) Service category is $758,406. City Funds do not contribute towards planning and program administration. The following table provides a summary of 2018 City Funding for Housing and Human (Public) Service, including differentiation between General Fund and KFCG sources for each: CITY FUNDS Funding Source Total Funds Housing Human (Public) Service Planning / Admin Human Service Program (GF) $ 385,119 $ 385,119 Affordable Housing Fund (GF) $ 325,047 $ 325,047 KFCG $ 573,287 $ 200,000 $ 373,287 TOTAL City Funds $ 1,283,453 $ 525,047 $ 758,406 COMBINED FUNDING TOTALS: FEDERAL + CITY Total Funds Housing Human (Public) Service Planning / Admin $ 5,205,993 $ 3,970,661 $ 925,083 $310,249 The City received 44 housing, public facility and human (public) service applications totaling $6,910,293. In the housing category, 5 proposals were received totaling $5,500,000. There is a shortage in Housing dollars of Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 FY2018 Funding Requests by Category Category Number of Applications Available Funding Requested Funding Available - Request Difference Administration - CDBG $214,642 $214,642 $0 Administration - HOME $95,607 $95,607 $0 Housing 5 $3,970,661 $5,500,000 - 1,576,344 * Human (Public) Service & Public Facility 39 $925,083 $1,410,293 - $485,210 Totals 44 $5,205,993 $7,220,542 - $2,061,554 * HUD regulations require a 15% set-aside for an eligible CHDO-approved project. The remaining CHDO set- aside amount, after the FY2018 Habitat for Humanity project allocation, is $47,005. These funds will be committed to a CHDO-eligible project during a future grant process. ($127,005 - $80,000 = $47,005) CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The CDBG and HOME programs provide federal funds from HUD to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects and administration of the funds, thereby, reducing the demand on the City’s General Fund budget to address such needs. In FY2018, the total amount of federal funds available for allocation is $3,922,540 and the City’s contribution is $1,283,453. These dollars allow applicants to leverage other funding sources to provide needed services in our community. Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ workforce can reside within the community. This means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit to economic sustainability. Human (Public) Service programs contribute to economic sustainability and homelessness prevention by providing such programs as education, childcare, counseling, and rent assistance, so workers can maintain their employment and housing. By providing funding to these programs, the agencies are better able to utilize other available funds to serve their clients. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The CDBG Commission recommends adoption of their funding recommendations made on April 12, 2018. The Commission read all applications (Attachment 2), listened to presentations by each applicant, and asked clarifying questions. In addition, in the Housing category, they reviewed the priority rankings of the Affordable Housing Board (Attachment 3), the goals of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and the priorities of the HUD required Five-Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). In the Human (Public) Service category they considered the performance of current grantees, the theme areas of the Social Sustainability Strategic Plan, the Con Plan and community needs. The following tables present the allocations recommended by the Commission to City Council within each major category: Planning and Administration Category Applicant Project/Program Funding Request Recommended Funding Unfunded Balance Percent of Request Funded City of Fort Collins: CDBG Administration/Planning $214,642 $214,642 $0 100% City of Fort Collins: HOME Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5 In the Housing category, 5 proposals were received. The CDBG Commission is recommending four of the five housing proposals for funding; two for full funding and two for partial. One proposal received $0 funding. There was a funding gap of $1,576,344. Those recommendations are listed in the table below: Housing Category Applicant Project/Program Funding Request Commission’s Recommended Funding Unfunded Balance Percent of Request Funded CARE Housing: UFAS $400,000 $220,318 $179,682 55% DMA Plaza: Rehabilitation $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $0 100% Habitat for Humanity: Poudre Build #4 $80,000 $80,000 $0 100% Housing Catalyst: Mason Place Permanent Supportive Housing $2,000,000 $1,123,338 $876,662 56% Neighbor to Neighbor: 20-Year Rehab at 613 & 619 Conifer $520,000 $0 $520,000 0% Housing Total $5,500,000 $3,923,656 $1,576,344 71% In the Human (Public) Service and Public Facility category 39 proposals were received. The CDBG Commission is recommending 34 of the 39 for funding, ranging from 28% to 100% of proposal’s request. Five proposals are not being recommended for funding. There is a funding gap of $485,210. The recommendation for the Public Facility application is for no funding. Those recommendations are listed in the table below: Human (Public) Service & Public Facility Categories Applicant Project/Program Funding Request Commission’s Recommended Funding Unfunded Balance Percent of Request Funded Alliance for Suicide Prevention: Prevention Education Programs $10,000 $4,200 $5,800 42% B.A.S.E. Camp: Childcare Scholarships $70,000 $52,500 $17,500 75% Boys & Girls Clubs of Larimer County: Great Futures Start Here $30,000 $23,000 $7,000 77% CASA Program: Court Appointed Special Advocates $34,250 $16,500 $17,750 48% CASA Program: Harmony House Supervised Visitation $32,965 $15,000 $17,965 46% Catholic Charities: Senior Services $35,000 $28,518 $6,482 81% Catholic Charities: The Mission Shelter $70,000 $35,098 $34,902 50% Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 6 Applicant Project/Program Funding Request Commission’s Recommended Funding Unfunded Balance Percent of Request Funded Elderhaus Adult Day Program: Community Based Therapeutic Care $53,000 $46,067 $6,933 87% Faith Family Hospitality: Homeless Family Services $30,000 $18,000 $12,000 60% Food Bank for Larimer County: Kids Café $30,000 $24,000 $6,000 80% Homeless Gear: Homeless Gear Programs $35,000 $34,000 $1,000 97% Homeless Gear: Murphy Center Programs $36,000 $31,162 $4,838 87% Kids at Heart: Fundango $13,000 $0 $13,000 0% Larimer County Partners: One to One Mentoring $15,000 $7,500 $7,500 50% Lutheran Family Services: Geriatric Care Management $29,002 $0 $29,002 0% Neighbor to Neighbor: Homelessness Prevention & 1st Month’s Rent $80,000 $80,000 $0 100% Neighbor to Neighbor: Housing Counseling $60,000 $35,000 $25,000 58% Partnership for Age-Friendly Communities: A Little Help $40,000 $18,000 $22,000 45% Project Self-Sufficiency: Creating Pathways to Self-Sufficiency $35,000 $30,000 $5,000 86% Respite Care: Childcare Scholarships $40,000 $32,607 $7,393 82% SAVA Center: Sexual Assault Victim Services $50,000 $28,500 $21,500 57% SummitStone Health Partners: Community Behavioral Health Treatment Program $30,000 $28,518 $1,482 95% SummitStone Health Partners: Mental Health Services at the Murphy Center $30,000 $20,839 $9,161 69% Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 7 Applicant Project/Program Funding Request Commission’s Recommended Funding Unfunded Balance Percent of Request Funded Volunteers of America: Home Delivered Meal Service $39,000 $35,000 $4,000 90% Human (Public) Service & Public Facility Total $1,410,293 $925,083 $485,210 66% A summary of the funding recommendations by category is presented in the following table: Funding Recommendations by Category Category Recommended Funding % of Total CDBG and HOME Program Administration $310,249 6% Housing $3,923,656 76% Human (Public) Service & Public Facility $925,083 18% Total $5,158,988 ** 100% ** The total funding recommendation is $47,005 below the total funding amount available due to the previously referenced CHDO withholding. The justifications for the CDBG Commission’s recommendations can be found in Attachment 1. PUBLIC OUTREACH Applicants had the opportunity to make presentations to the CDBG Commission on four evenings in March 2018 and the CDBG Commission held a meeting on April 12, 2018 to deliberate the proposals and make funding recommendations. A meeting that combined the CDBG Commission and the Affordable Housing Board was also held on March 7, 2018 to discuss the merits of all proposals and identify follow-up questions, without any funding discussion. All meetings were open to the public and added to the City calendar. HUD regulations require a 30-day public comment period on the proposed allocation of CDBG and HOME funds. Staff placed an ad in the Coloradoan newspaper on April 24, 2018 presenting the list of recommended funding for programs/projects and indicated the public comment period would start on May 4, 2018, and end on June 5, 2018. The Council meeting on June 5, 2018 will serve as a Public Hearing and comments will be recorded and reported to HUD in August. The public notice of funding recommendations was placed on the Social Sustainability Department’s website. It was also distributed to applicants, current grant recipients, and entities serving a majority of clients in legally protected classes—including those in a racial/ethnic minority, those with a disability, or female heads of households—or serving those community members who might otherwise have barriers to public participation in the City’s civic engagement processes. The public comments received have largely been statements of gratitude from the applying agencies, as well as a limited number of statements of concerns from applying agencies, which have been resolved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Community Development Block Grant Commission minutes, April 12, 2018 (PDF) 2. CDBG Summary of Organizations requestion funding and recommendations (PDF) 3. Affordable Housing Board Priority Ranking (PDF) 3.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND WHEREAS, the City estimates it will receive in federal fiscal year 2018-2019 unanticipated revenue in the form of federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) totaling $1,073,214; and WHEREAS, the City also has identified unprogrammed CDBG funds through a reconciliation with the federal Integrated Disbursement & Information System (“IDIS”) of $192,549; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-054, approving the CDBG Commission’s recommendation as to which programs and projects should receive CDBG funds in the 2018 funding cycle; 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 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, this appropriation benefits the public health, safety and welfare of Fort Collins residents and serves the public purpose of providing safe, affordable public housing and human services, contributing to economic stability and homelessness prevention for Fort Collins residents; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the appropriation of all unanticipated CDBG grant and other revenue as described herein will not result in total appropriations in excess of the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the federal fiscal year 2018-2019 from HUD into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum of ONE MILLION SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED 3.2 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Ordinance No. 070, 2018 (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) -2- FOURTEEN DOLLARS ($1,073,214), upon receipt thereof for federal fiscal year 2018-2019 Community Development Block Grant projects. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue from a reconciliation of funding between the City JDE system and the federal IDIS system into the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the sum of ONE HUNDRED NINETY- TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE DOLLARS ($192,549), for approved Community Development Block Grant projects. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 3.2 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Ordinance No. 070, 2018 (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 071, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE 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 that 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 reauthorizes and continues to fund the program; and WHEREAS, the City estimates it will receive in federal fiscal year 2018-2019 unanticipated revenue in the form of HOME Program funds from HUD totaling is $846,700; and WHEREAS, the City received unanticipated HOME Program income in the amount of $515,534; 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, the City Manager 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 2018 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; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits the public health, safety and welfare of Fort Collins residents and serves the public purpose of providing safe, affordable housing for low-income residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: 3.3 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance No. 071, 2018 (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the federal fiscal year 2018-2019 in the HOME Program Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($846,700), upon receipt from federal fiscal year 2018-2019 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant Funds. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated program income revenue, upon receipt thereof, in the HOME Program Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($515,534), for approved HOME Program projects. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 3.3 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Ordinance No. 071, 2018 (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Eric Keselburg, Compliance Supervisor Jody Hurst, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 Regarding Civil Infractions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, removes the notification requirement for violations of Chapter 19 to allow Code Compliance Inspectors the flexibility to issue immediate citations for all properties, includes some identified and sustained egregious or chronic offenders of the nuisance code. Civil infractions are heard under the approved Municipal Court Rules. On Second Reading, the Ordinance amends the heading for Chapter 19, Article V, to read “Civil Infractions” instead of “Rules for Civil Infractions” to avoid any confusion with the Municipal Court Rules. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Eric Keselburg, Compliance Supervisor Jody Hurst, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2018, Amending Chapter 19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Civil Infractions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to remove the notification requirement for violations of Chapter 19 of the City Code to allow Code Compliance Inspectors the flexibility to issue immediate citations for all properties, including some identified and sustained egregious or chronic offenders of the nuisance code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The current Code allows an officer to immediately serve a civil citation without prior notice for a civil infraction in certain circumstances, including a second or subsequent violation within a twelve-month period for the same violation. Other violations are for parking on yards, occupancy code violations, and some animal violations. Allowing the option to take immediate enforcement action should expedite correction of observed nuisance infractions without requiring the notification process that sometimes delays corrective action. Staff would create a clearly defined department policy to provide guidance to compliance officers on when it is appropriate to provide a notice of violation and when to issue a citation without allowing an opportunity to correct the violation. PUBLIC OUTREACH Proposed changes have been communicated to the public through an article in Neighborhood News and a news release will be issued next week. ATTACHMENT 1 4.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6871 : SR 072 Nuisance Code) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING CIVIL INFRACTIONS WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 198, 2006, (the “Original Ordinance”) amending City Code to establish a civil infraction for many violations of City Code previously considered misdemeanors; and WHEREAS, the Original Ordinance made mandatory the issuance of a notice of violation before a civil citation could be issued, with a single exception that allowed for the immediate issuance of a citation for “a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare”; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the Original Ordinance, many exceptions have been added to the Code, permitting Code Enforcement Officers to immediately issue civil citations for various offenses; and WHEREAS, those exceptions have provided flexibility and have proven effective for Code Enforcement Officers; and WHEREAS, changing the requirement will provide consistency in enforcement procedures; and WHEREAS, removing the Code requirement to provide a notice of violation before a civil citation is issued will give more flexibility to Code Enforcement Officers when dealing with properties within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of the City and are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Chapter 19 Article V’s heading is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE V. – RULES FOR CIVIL INFRACTIONS Section 23. That Section 19-63 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 19-63. Definitions. Packet Pg. 52 -2- The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: . . . Charging document shall mean the document initiating the civil infraction matter, whether denoted as a complaint, summons and complaint, citation, penalty assessment notice, removal assessment, civil citation, or other document charging the person with the commission of a civil infraction or infractions. . . . Section 34. That Section 19-65 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure. (a) Officers shall have the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings as provided below. (1) An officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a responsible party has committed a civil infraction under this Code is authorized to serve a notice of violation or a civil citation to the responsible party. If a notice of violation has been issued instead of a civil citation, the officer shall set a reasonable time period within which the responsible party must correct the violation. This determination shall be based on considerations of fairness, practicality, ease of correction, the nature, extent and probability of danger or damage to the public or property, and any other relevant factor relating to the reasonableness of the time period prescribed. An officer may, when issuing a civil citation, also set a time within which the responsible party must correct the violation, using the considerations above. (2) The citation form shall include, but need not be limited to, the following: a. Date and time of issuance. b. Name and signature of officer. c. Name and address of the responsible party. d. Code section for violation charged. e. Brief description of the nature of the violation, including location, date and time of violation and, if applicable, description of the actions required to correct the violation. f. Procedure for the defendant to follow in paying the civil penalty, costs, assessments and fees or contesting the citation. g. Notice that additional citations may be served for each day that the applicable violation is found to exist. Packet Pg. 53 -3- (3) The officer may require that a responsible party or any person receiving a citation provide proof of identity and residential or work address. (4) The officer shall attempt to serve the citation to a responsible party at the site of the violation. If no responsible party can be located at the site of the violation, a copy of the citation shall be served by mail to the responsible party via first-class mail at any last known address of said party in the records of the City or County and a copy shall also be left with any adult person residing or working at the site of the violation. If no adult person is found at the site and the violation occurred on private property or on property for which a responsible party has responsibility under any other ordinance or the violation involves a vehicle or trailer as the nuisance, then a copy of the citation shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the property or attached to the vehicle or trailer, whichever is applicable. (5) The officer shall attempt to obtain the signature of the person to whom he or she served the citation; however, if the citation is mailed or posted or if the person fails or refuses to sign the citation, such failure or refusal shall not affect the validity of the citation or any subsequent proceedings. (6) Proper notice shall be deemed served on the date of receipt by the responsible party if personally served, or upon the fifth day after mailing, attaching or posting of the citation. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2018 Annexing Property Known as the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, annexes an area of approximately 0.862 acres in southwest Fort Collins. The property is situated on the southwest corner of the South Taft Hill Road and West County Road 38E intersection. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on the consent agenda on April 17, 2018. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this Agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance 073, 2018 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Aweida Annexation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2018-055 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Aweida Annexation. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2018, Annexing the Property Known as the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex an area of approximately 0.862 acres in southwest Fort Collins. The property is situated on the southwest corner of the South Taft Hill Road and West County Road 38E intersection. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on the consent agenda on April 17, 2018. A related item to zone the annexed property is presented as the next item on this Agenda. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Contiguity The subject property gains the required one-sixth contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation (Ordinance No. 068, 1980). The minimum contiguous boundary is 135.39 feet, based on the total perimeter boundary of 810.74 feet. The proposed annexation includes a contiguous boundary of 162.20 feet, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. Enclave Implications Annexing this 0.862-acre parcel does not create (nor does it contribute to creating) an enclave. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts as a result of the proposed annexation. Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-0 (the Board Chair recused himself) to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Board recommended that the property be placed into the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district. This action was taken as part of the Board’s consent agenda; therefore, there are no minutes. PUBLIC OUTREACH A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2018, that was attended by six residents from the notification area. Staff received mixed feedback from participants either in support for the annexation and future development project, concerns of potential impacts of the future development project, and the potential for a future annexation that includes a larger area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map (PDF) 2. Annexation map (PDF) 3. Annexation Petition (PDF) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary, March 22, 2018 (PDF) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 073, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE AWEIDA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2018-036, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings for the Aweida Annexation, as defined therein and described below, was previously adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2018-055 setting forth findings of fact and determinations regarding the Aweida Annexation was adopted concurrently with the first reading of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to annex the property to be known as the Aweida Annexation (the “Property”) to 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 makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby incorporates the findings of Resolution 2018- 036 and Resolution 2018-055 and further finds that it is in the best interests of the City to annex the Property to the City. Section 3. That the Property, more particularly described as: A parcel of land situated in the East Half of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., being more particularly described as follows: Considering the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33 as bearing South 00°06'18" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: BEGINNING at the East Quarter corner of said Section 33; thence along the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33, said line also being the West line of the Horsetooth - Harmony West Annexation to the City of Fort Collins as recorded at Book 1873, Page 735 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, South 00°06'18" East, 162.20 feet; thence departing said line, South 89°53'42" West, 30.95 feet to a point on the West right of way line of South Taft Hill Road; thence along the South line of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20160052454 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, South 89°53'33" West, 152.83 feet; thence along the West line of said parcel of land, North 00°11'50" East, 131.75 feet; thence departing said line, North 00°15’33” West, 59.96 feet to a point on the South line of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20070027078 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said line, North 89°44’26” East, 98.37 feet to the Southwest corner of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20060042003 Larimer 5.2 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Ordinance 073, 2018 (6872 : SR 073 Aweida Annexation) -2- County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said parcel the following four (4) courses and distances, North 00°08’23” East, 20.00 feet; thence, North 89°44’27” East, 20.00 feet; thence, North 00°00’00” East, 10.00 feet; thence, North 89°44’29” East, 15.02 feet to a point on the West right of way line of South Taft Hill road; thence departing said line, South 89°51’37” East, 50.00 feet to point on the East line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence, South 00°08’23” West, 59.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 37,537 square feet or 0.862 acres, more or less is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Aweida Annexation, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of the conditions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4. That, in annexing the Property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the Property hereby annexed except as may be provided by ordinances of the City. Section 5. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of the Property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 5.2 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Ordinance 073, 2018 (6872 : SR 073 Aweida Annexation) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, zones the property included in the Aweida Annexation into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (PDF) 2. Ordinance 074, 2018 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 59 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Zoning the Aweida Annexation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2018-056 Amending the City’s Structure Plan Map. This Ordinance is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2018-034. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2018, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Aweida Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the Aweida Annexation into the Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood zone district. A Council amendment of the City Structure Plan Map is necessary to allow for the Aweida Annexation to be zoned L-M-N. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Aweida Annexation includes one vacant parcel owned by Aweida Properties, Inc., and right-of-way owned by Larimer County. The right-of-way for a portion of S. Taft Hill Road and W CR 38 E is included in the annexation to provide continuity of service for the City of Fort Collins. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: Direction Existing Land Use Zone District North Commercial (County) Commercial (County) South Residential (County) R Rural Estate (County) East Residential Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods West Residential (County) R Rural Estate (County) The requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N. The City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan, currently classifies the Aweida Annexation as Urban-Estate which corresponds to the Urban Estate (UE) zoning upon annexation. A Council amendment of the City Structure Plan Map is necessary to allow for the Aweida ATTACHMENT 1 6.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (6878 : SR 074 Aweida Zoning) Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 Annexation to be zoned L-M-N. The resolution to amend the map is included at first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. The request to amend the City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan and referred to as the Plan Amendment, is needed to re-designate approximately 0.862 acres of land from Urban Estate (U-E) to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Future development in the U-E zoning requires a minimum ½ acre lot. The Aweida parcel is 0.44 acres, less than the ½ acre minimum. The proposed L-M-N designated land is necessary to accommodate a proposed project that is consistent with City policies related to mixed-use development, is consistent with adjacent L-M-N zoning near a neighborhood center, and facilitates the coordination of public street infrastructure improvements. The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. The proposed amendment to the City Structure Plan Map is limited to a single element of City Plan and, therefore, constitutes a Minor Amendment. The property is bordered by existing single-family homes to the south and west, the existing JJ’s commercial center to the north, and existing L-M-N zoned neighborhood to the east. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. Staff recommends that the subject property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts as a result of the proposed zoning. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-0 (the Board Chair recused himself) to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Board recommended that the parcel be placed into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (L-M-N) zone district. This unanimous action was taken as part of the Board’s consent agenda, therefore, there are no minutes. PUBLIC OUTREACH A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2018, that was attended by six residents from the notification area. Staff received mixed feedback from participants either in support for the annexation and future development project, concerns of potential impacts of the future development project, and the potential for a future annexation that includes a larger area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map (PDF) 2. Zoning map (PDF) 3. Structure Plan map (PDF) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 6.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (6878 : SR 074 Aweida Zoning) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE AWEIDA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AND APPROVING CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.9.2, the City Planning and Zoning Board, at its meeting on May 17, 2018, on a 4-0 vote (the Board Chair recused himself) recommended zoning the property to be known as the Aweida Annexation (the “Property”) as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood as more particularly described below and determined that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the Property; and WHEREAS, in Resolution 2018-056, the City Council amended the City Structure Plan Map to designate the Property as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning of the Property, as described below is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the Property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed zoning against the applicable criteria set forth in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code and finds the proposed zoning to be in compliance with all such criteria; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the Property as described below, finds it to be in the best interests of the City, and has determined that the Property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including 6.2 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Ordinance 074, 2018 (6878 : SR 074 Aweida Zoning) -2- the Property in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District as more particularly described as: A parcel of land situated in the East Half of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., being more particularly described as follows: Considering the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33 as bearing South 00°06'18" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: BEGINNING at the East Quarter corner of said Section 33; thence along the East line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33, said line also being the West line of the Horsetooth - Harmony West Annexation to the City of Fort Collins as recorded at Book 1873, Page 735 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, South 00°06'18" East, 162.20 feet; thence departing said line, South 89°53'42" West, 30.95 feet to a point on the West right of way line of South Taft Hill Road; thence along the South line of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20160052454 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, South 89°53'33" West, 152.83 feet; thence along the West line of said parcel of land, North 00°11'50" East, 131.75 feet; thence departing said line, North 00°15’33” West, 59.96 feet to a point on the South line of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20070027078 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said line, North 89°44’26” East, 98.37 feet to the Southwest corner of a parcel of land recorded at Reception No. 20060042003 Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said parcel the following four (4) courses and distances, North 00°08’23” East, 20.00 feet; thence, North 89°44’27” East, 20.00 feet; thence, North 00°00’00” East, 10.00 feet; thence, North 89°44’29” East, 15.02 feet to a point on the West right of way line of South Taft Hill road; thence departing said line, South 89°51’37” East, 50.00 feet to point on the East line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence, South 00°08’23” West, 59.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 37,537 square feet or 0.862 acres, more or less. Section 3. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the Property described herein is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. 6.2 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Ordinance 074, 2018 (6878 : SR 074 Aweida Zoning) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.2 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Ordinance 074, 2018 (6878 : SR 074 Aweida Zoning) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2018, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2018, amends the Election Code to clarify that expenditures for political advertising includes internet advertising; amend deadlines for write-in candidates, nomination petitions, withdrawals and campaign reports; and adopt Code language to align with the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The Code amendments will also require candidates and committees to keep samples of public communications and revise the definition for independent expenditures. Between First and Second Reading, the Ordinance has been amended to change the deadline for political committees or issues committees to file a termination report from sixty days to seventy days after the election. This deadline change will align the requirement for termination reports with the date all final reports are due. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 65 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 5, 2018 City Council STAFF Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2018, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to amend the Election Code to clarify that expenditures for political advertising includes internet advertising; amend deadlines for write-in candidates, nomination petitions, withdrawals and campaign reports; and adopt Code language to align with the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The Code amendments will also require candidates and committees to keep samples of public communications and revise the definition for independent expenditures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Council Election Code Committee recommend adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2015, Council formed an ad hoc committee to review, discuss and recommend changes to the City Code and Charter regarding elections and other related matters. In 2017, Council made the ad hoc committee a standing committee of the Council for the purpose of identifying and evaluating ideas for improvements to City election laws and practices and anticipating adjustments that may be needed to adapt to a rapidly changing legal and technological environment. Councilmembers Cunniff, Overbeck, and Stephens have continuously served in this capacity since 2015. Since the original formation of the ad hoc Committee, Council has considered and adopted three Ordinances amending various provisions of Chapter 7. This Ordinance represents a continuation of the work to make improvements. Most of the amendments contained in this Ordinance are considered to be noncontroversial, and enacting them at this time will be advantageous as preparations begin later this year for the 2019 City Election. A summary of the proposed amendments, in the order they appear in the ordinance follows: Deadlines Relating to Candidacy Current time periods between the actions affecting the content of the ballot and when the ballots need to be mailed are extremely tight. Staff is recommending minor adjustments to the deadlines for registration of a write- in candidate, the window for circulating nomination petitions, the deadline to withdraw from nomination, and the deadline for filing a nomination petition as a replacement candidate in the event of recall of a Councilmember. The proposed deadlines provide additional time needed for ballot preparation, and maintain a standard 7-day increment. 7.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (6879 : SR 077 Election) Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 Independent Expenditures This Ordinance changes the definition of “independent expenditure” to:  clarify that independent expenditure includes advertisements placed for a fee on another person’s website, or advertisement space provided for no fee or a reduced fee when a fee ordinarily would have been charged.  require reporting of independent expenditures supporting a ballot issue or question. Currently, independent expenditures are limited to support or opposition of a candidate. The Code section relating to Independent Expenditures includes a proposed amendment requiring that, in addition to keeping documentation of expenditures in the form of invoices, receipts and other instruments of payment, copies of any public communications produced as a result of the expenditure must also be retained. Campaign Contributions/Expenditures Proposed amendments include:  a requirement that, in addition to keeping documentation of expenditures in the form of invoices, receipts and other instruments of payment, a committee must also keep copies of any public communications produced as a result of the expenditure.  adjusting the deadline for post-election campaign reports from the 60th day to the 70th day after the election, and adjusting the report due on the 30th day after the election to be due instead on the 35th day after the election, which maintains a 7-day increment. Expenditures for Political Advertising The amendments proposed for this section of the Code adds Internet advertisers, website providers and social media providers to the list of possible entities providing paid advertising. and to the reporting of discounted rates. Uniformed Military and Overseas Voters At the April 2017 election, voters approved a change in the date of certification of an election. Doing so allows the City to enact a portion of the Uniformed Military and Overseas Voters Act (UOCAVA). The proposed Article is closely aligned with State Statute, but only to the extent the provisions apply to municipal elections and only to the extent that can be accomplished within our existing time frame. The primary provision of this new Article is to allow for the acceptance and counting of UOCAVA ballots mailed on or before 7 p.m. mountain time on election day and received by the City Clerk by 5 p.m. on the 8th day after the election. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Any financial impacts as a result of these amendments will be negligible. PUBLIC OUTREACH Meetings of the Election Code Committee are posted on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. Several members of the community regularly attend Committee meetings and provide input to the Committee on topics on the agenda and other items of interest. ATTACHMENTS 1. Power Point Presentation (PDF) 7.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (6879 : SR 077 Election) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 077, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO AMEND REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Chapter 7 of the City Code sets out procedures and requirements for redistricting of Council districts, for the conduct of City elections, for disclosure of campaign finance information, and other related matters; and WHEREAS, in 2015 the City Council formed an ad hoc committee, including Councilmembers Cunniff, Overbeck and Stephens, to review, discuss and recommend the most beneficial changes to the Code and City Charter regarding elections and other related matters; and WHEREAS, in January 2017, Council made the ad hoc Committee a standing committee of the Council for the purpose of identifying and evaluating ideas for improvements to City election laws and practices and anticipating adjustments that may be needed to adopt to a changing legal and technological environment, for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Committee’s work (as both an ad hoc committee and a standing committee), Ordinance No. 021, 2016, Ordinance No. 005, 2017, and Ordinance No. 045, 2018 were considered and adopted by the Council to update various provisions of Chapter 7; and WHEREAS, the Committee continued to meet in 2017 and 2018, and has recommended additional clarifications and amendments to Chapter 7; and WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that deadlines for submission of filings be adjusted to provide clarification in Code Sections 7-103, 7-116, 7-117, and 7-136; and WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that the definition of independent expenditure be expanded to include uncoordinated expenditures supporting or opposing ballot issues or ballot questions, while excluding certain media communication, and to also require persons making such expenditures to retain copies of public communications resulting from said expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended changes to Code Sections 7-132, 7-135, 7- 139, and 7-141 to address changing methods of political communication, including but not limited to campaign advertisements on websites and social media; and WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended the creation of a new Article IX of the Code to address absentee voting by uniform military and overseas voters; and WHEREAS, these amendments generally improve and clarify the City’s campaign finance disclosure and election requirements and processes; and Packet Pg. 68 -2- WHEREAS, the Council desires to enact the recommendations of the Committee and staff in order to clarify and improve the various provisions of Chapter 7, as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 7-103 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-103. Write-in Candidates. No write-in vote for a candidate for City Council office shall be counted unless the person whose name appears as the write-in vote has filed an affidavit of intent with the City Clerk, no later than the close of business forty-two (42) days before the election, indicating that such person desires and is qualified for the office. Section 3. That Section 7-116 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-116. Nomination of candidates; withdrawal from candidacy. A nominating petition required pursuant to Article VIII of the Charter may not be circulated earlier than seventy (70) days before the election and must be filed with the City Clerk not later forty-nine (49) days before the election. A person who has been nominated may, not later than forty-two (42) days before the election, withdraw by filing with the City Clerk a request therefor in writing, and no name so withdrawn shall be placed upon the ballot. Section 4. That Section 7-117 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-117. Recall elections; nomination of candidates. Anyone desiring to become a candidate at a recall election shall do so by nominating petition as required in Article VIII of the Charter. All nominating petitions for such candidates shall be filed with the Office of the City Clerk no later than forty-nine (49) days prior to the date of the recall election. Section 5. That Section 7-132 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended with respect to the definition of the term “independent expenditure,” to read as follows: Sec. 7-132. Definitions. Packet Pg. 69 -3- . . . Independent expenditure shall mean the payment of money by any person for the purpose of advocating the election, defeat or recall of a candidate, which expenditure is not controlled by, or coordinated with, any candidate or any agent of such candidate. Independent expenditure shall include expenditures for political messages which unambiguously refer to any specific public office or candidate for such office. Independent expenditure shall also include the payment of money by any person for supporting or opposing a ballot issue or ballot question that is not controlled by, or coordinated with, an issue committee. Independent expenditure shall include, but not be limited to, advertisements placed for a fee on another person’s website or advertisement space provided for no fee or a reduced fee where a fee ordinarily would have been charged. Independent expenditure shall not include: (1) Expenditures made by persons, other than political committees, in the regular course and scope of their business and political messages sent solely to their members; or (2) Any news articles, editorial endorsements, opinion or commentary writings, or letters to the editor printed in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical not owned or controlled by the candidate, or communications other than advertisements posted or published on the internet for no fee. Section 6. That Section 7-132 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to add a definition of the term “social media,” to read as follows: Sec. 7-132. Definitions. . . . Social media shall mean any electronic medium, including an interactive computer service, application, or data network, that allows users to create, share, and view user- generated content, including but not limited to videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant messages, electronic mail, or internet website profiles. . . . Section 7. That Section 7-134(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-134. Registration of committees; termination. . . . Packet Pg. 70 -4- (d) Any political committee or issue committee that has not taken the necessary steps to terminate pursuant to Subsection (c) above must have properly disposed of all funds and must file a termination report no later than sixty (60) seventy (70) days after the election. Section 78. That Section 7-135(f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-135. Campaign contributions/expenditures. . . . (f) Recordkeeping. (1) All contributions received by a candidate committee, small-scale issue committee, issue committee or political committee shall be documented and deposited and maintained in a financial institution in a separate account whose title shall include the name of the committee. All records pertaining to contributions and related accounts shall be maintained by the committee for one (1) year following any election in which the committee received contributions unless a complaint has been filed under Subsection 7-145(a) alleging a violation of the provisions of this Article, or the person or committee has received notice of an investigation or prosecution of a violation of this Article by the City or other law enforcement authority, in which case they shall be maintained until final disposition of the complaint and any consequent court proceedings. Such records shall be subject to inspection in connection with any investigation or other action to enforce the terms of this Article. (2) All expenditures shall be documented and all records pertaining to said expenditures, including but not limited to invoices, receipts, instruments of payment, and copies of any public communications produced as a result of the expenditure, shall be maintained by the committee for one (1) year following any election in which the committee expended the funds unless a complaint has been filed under Subsection 7-145(a) alleging a violation of the provisions of this Article, or the person or committee has received notice of an investigation or prosecution of a violation of this Article by the City or other law enforcement authority, in which case they shall be maintained until final disposition of the complaint and any consequent court proceedings. Documentation shall include the name and address of the vendor(s) or payee(s) providing the property, materials, or services and the amount of the expenditure. Such records shall be made available within three (3) business days upon request of the City and subject to inspection in connection with any investigation or other action to enforce the terms of this Article. Section 89. That Section 7-136(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Packet Pg. 71 -5- Sec. 7-136. Disclosure; filing of reports. . . . (c) Reports shall be filed with the City Clerk as follows: (1) All committees must file reports on the following dates: a. the thirty-fifth (35 th ) day before the election; b. the twenty-first (21 st ) day before the election; c. the fourteenth (14 th ) day before the election; d. no later than noon on the Friday before the election; e. the thirty-fifth (35 th ) day after the election; and f. the seventieth (70 th ) day after the election. (2) Candidate committees that continue in operation must file a report annually on the first day of the month in which the anniversary of the election occurs until such time as a termination report is filed. (3) If the reporting day falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the report shall be filed by the close of the next business day. . . . Section 910. That Section 7-139 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-139. Independent expenditures. Any person or political committee making independent expenditures totaling more than one hundred dollars ($100.) shall deliver notice in writing of such independent expenditures to the City Clerk no later than three (3) business days after the day that such funds are obligated. Said notice shall include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the person making the independent expenditures; (2) The name of the candidate whom the independent expenditures are intended to support or oppose; (3) The name and address of the vendor(s) providing the property, materials or services; (4) A detailed description of the independent expenditures sufficient to allow for determination of compliance with this section; Packet Pg. 72 -6- (5) The amount of the independent expenditures; (6) The date the funds were obligated; and (7) Copies of receipts, invoices, or other documentation related to the independent expenditure. For the purposes of this provision, funds shall be considered to have been obligated as soon as an agreement is reached for the provision of the property, materials or services in question, regardless of when payment is to be made for such property or services. All independent expenditures shall be documented and all records pertaining to independent expenditures, including but not limited to invoices, receipts, instruments of payment, and copies of any public communications produced as a result of the expenditure, shall be maintained for one (1) year following any election in which the funds were expended unless a complaint has been filed under Subsection 7-145(a) alleging a violation of the provisions of this Article, or the person or committee has received notice of an investigation or prosecution of a violation of this Article by the City or other law enforcement authority, in which case they shall be maintained until final disposition of the complaint and any consequent court proceedings. Such records shall be made available within three (3) business days upon request of the City and subject to inspection in connection with any hearing held pursuant to this Article. Section 1011. That Section 7-141 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-141. Expenditures for political advertising; rates and charges. (a) No candidate committee shall pay to any radio or television station, newspaper, periodical, internet advertiser or website provider, social media provider or other supplier of materials or services a higher charge than that normally required for local commercial customers for comparable use of space, materials or services. Any such rate shall not be rebated, directly or indirectly. (b) Any radio or television station, newspaper, internet advertiser or website provider, social media provider or periodical that charges an issue committee or candidate committee a lower rate for use of space, materials or services than the rate such station, newspaper, internet advertiser or website provider, social media provider or periodical or supplier charges another issue committee or candidate committee for the same ballot measure or public office for comparable use of space, materials or services shall report the difference in such rate as a contribution in kind to the issue committee or candidate committee that is charged such lower rate. (c) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent an adjustment in rates related to frequency, volume, production costs and agency fees if such adjustments are offered consistently to other advertisers. Packet Pg. 73 -7- Section 1112. That Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new Article IX to read as follows: ARTICLE IX. UNIFORM MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS Sec. 7-211. Legislative Intent. The City Council hereby finds and declares that it is appropriate and necessary to provide an avenue for City electors who are active members of the various uniformed services or who are overseas to submit absentee votes in City elections. Sec. 7-212. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Absentee ballot shall mean a ballot transmitted to a covered voter at an address or location other than the residential or mail address of the elector in the County’s voter registration records, or by any other reasonable method acceptable to the covered voter. Covered voter shall mean: (1) A uniformed-service voter, as defined in this Section, who is a resident of the City but who is absent from the City by reason of active duty and who otherwise satisfies the City’s voter eligibility requirements; (2) An overseas voter who, before leaving the United States, was last eligible to vote in the City and, except for a residency requirement, otherwise satisfies the City’s voter eligibility requirements; (3) An overseas voter who, before leaving the United States, would have been last eligible to vote in the City had the voter then been of voting age and, except for a residency requirement, otherwise satisfies the City’s voter eligibility requirements; or (4) An overseas voter who was born outside the United States, is not described in paragraph (2) or (3) of this definition, and, except for a residency requirement, otherwise satisfies the City’s voter eligibility requirements if the last place where a parent, legal guardian, spouse or civil union partner of the voter was, or under this Article would have been, eligible to vote before leaving the United States is within the City. Packet Pg. 74 -8- Dependent shall mean a spouse, civil union partner, or dependent of a covered voter defined in this Section who is a resident of the City but who is absent from the City by reason of the active duty or service of the covered voter. Overseas voter shall mean a United States citizen who is outside the United States. Uniformed-service voter shall mean an individual who is qualified to vote in the City and is: (1) A member of the active or reserve components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard of the United States who is on active duty; (2) A member of the merchant marine, the commissioned corps of the public health service, or the commissioned corps of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration of the United States; or (3) A member on activated status of the National Guard. Sec. 7-213. Notice of upcoming election. Prior to any election conducted by the City and not coordinated with the County pursuant to Section 1-7-116, C.R.S., the City Clerk shall mail a letter to all covered voters eligible to participate in the upcoming election notifying said voters of the date ballots will be mailed, the unlikelihood that the time periods for conducting the election will afford said voters the opportunity to receive the ballot mailed and return his or her voted ballot in a timely manner, and alternative methods for casting a ballot for the election. Said letter shall be mailed as follows: (1) For a regular municipal election, no less than sixty-three (63) days prior to the date of election. (2) For a special municipal election, no less than sixty-three (63) days prior to the date of election. (3) For a recall election, as soon as practicable after the election is called. Sec. 7-214. Alternative methods for casting a ballot; transmission and receipt. (a) A covered voter may vote the original ballot mailed to him or her or may request an absentee ballot. (b) Voted ballots may be returned by mail, or by electronic mail or any other reasonable method to provide the covered voter an opportunity to vote, provided that the method is acceptable to the City Clerk and the covered voter and provided the covered voter acknowledges in writing that he or she has chosen to vote using the alternative Packet Pg. 75 -9- method and has further agreed that the City Clerk may manually transfer the covered voter’s vote to an official ballot for counting purposes. (c) To be valid, a ballot must be either received by the City Clerk by 7:00 p.m. on the date of election, or be postmarked or deposited by the covered voter with a military post office by 7:00 p.m. mountain time on the date of the election. (d) A valid ballot cast by mail shall be counted if it is received by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. mountain time on the eighth (8 th ) day after the election. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 76 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Poudre River Whitewater Park Fundraising. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2018-061 Recognizing Revenues Received from Private Fundraising and Finding Substantial Satisfaction of Conditions on Prior Appropriations for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. The purpose of this item is to acknowledge receipt of the full amount of fundraising dollars required to release expenditure of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) funds appropriated for the project under Ordinance No. 058, 2018, and to appropriate additional fundraising dollars secured for the Whitewater Park Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Per Ordinance No. 013, 2015, a City Council resolution is required to confirm receipt of at least $1.5M of fundraising obligation required to release the $4.2M of CCIP funds previously appropriated for this project. City staff has confirmed receipt of a total of $1,921,951 of fundraising dollars for the project. Of that amount, $1,603,852 has been appropriated. The remaining $318,099 requires appropriation. Funding Sources Current funding for the project is provided from several sources: Funding Sources Amount Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) $4,200,000 Natural Areas $1,000,000 Stormwater $1,734,000 General Fund (property acquisition) $1,492,000 Urban Renewal Authority $303,000 Park Impact Fees (property acquisition) $862,971 Fundraising $1,603,852 8 Packet Pg. 77 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 Sub-Total Available Funding $11,195,823 Additional Fundraising to be appropriated $318,099 Total Available Funding $11,513,922 Total Fundraising $1,921,951 The Whitewater Park Project is scheduled to begin construction in summer 2018 and be completed in summer 2019. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The release of appropriated funds for construction expenses of the Project is necessary to meet current project schedules. The appropriation is for additional fundraising dollars from a private donor. No additional City funding is necessary. City staff recommends an appropriation of $318,099 from the Capital Project Fund, plus the required APP contributions. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City staff has met with multiple boards, commissions, and citizen groups regarding the project, who are all supportive of the project and the fundraising dollars secured. These boards include: • Parks & Recreation Board • North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) • Commission on Disabilities • Water Board • Natural Resources Advisory Board • Land Conservation & Stewardship Board PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff conducted considerable public outreach for the 2014 Poudre River Downtown Master Plan, which includes the Whitewater Park Project. As part of the development review process for the Whitewater Park, an open house was conducted, offering citizens an opportunity to comment on the project. Staff has coordinated and communicated consistently with multiple stakeholders throughout the duration of the project, including the whitewater enthusiasts who helped raise private philanthropic funds for the project. There is strong support and significant enthusiasm for the project from these groups. ATTACHMENTS 1. Whitewater Park Fundraising Report (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 78 ATTACHMENT 1 8.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Whitewater Park Fundraising Report (6877 : Whitewater Park Fundraising) Poudre River Whitewater Park Fundraising Summary Report Introduction A whitewater park is proposed east of College Avenue between College Avenue and the BNSF railroad. The park includes stormwater improvements, natural system enhancements, in-stream recreation, park gathering areas and river access points. The project is anticipated to be open in Summer 2019. The total project cost is approximately $11.5M. Fundraising Summary The following private and public fundraising dollars have been secured exclusively for the whitewater park project: Funder Amount Gates Family Foundation $225,000 Noosa Yoghurt $50,000 Bohemian Foundation $100,000 Colorado Water Conservation Board $300,000 Whitewater Enthusiasts (Donations in addition to funds secured through Community Foundation of Northern Colorado) $15,396 Private Funding Sources via the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado $1,204,255 Downtown Development Authority $27,300 Total Whitewater Park Fundraising Contributions $1,921,951 8.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Whitewater Park Fundraising Report (6877 : Whitewater Park Fundraising) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-061 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RECOGNIZING REVENUES RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE FUNDRAISING AND FINDING SUBSTANTIAL SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS ON PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, at a regular City election held on April 7, 2015, the voters of the City of Fort Collins approved the extension of the expiring twenty-five hundredths percent (0.25%) capital projects sales and use tax (the “Tax”) for a period of ten years; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Tax, as outlined in the ballot measure, is the planning, design, real property acquisition, and construction of seventeen capital projects and related operation and maintenance, referred to as the Community Capital Improvement Program (“CCIP”), which includes construction of Downtown Poudre River Enhancements and a Kayak Park (the “Whitewater Park Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 013, 2015 (“Building on Basics Ordinance”), in which the City Council recognized and adopted the passage of the CCIP ballot measure, prior to use of any revenues from the Tax for construction of the Whitewater Park Project (but not before beginning planning, design, and property acquisition) the City Council must determine, after receiving a report and recommendation from the City Manager, that the City has received at least $1,500,000 in contributions and pledges of cash and other property from private sources in support of the Whitewater Park Project, and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 058, 2018, appropriating funds for the Whitewater Park Project, subject to the conditions that: • such additional funds may not be expended for construction of the Project until the City Manager provides a further report and recommendation indicating the City has received the full $1,500,000 in private contributions and pledges; and • the City Council adopts a resolution making a determination that such condition of Ordinance No. 013, 2015, has been fully satisfied; and WHEREAS, the City Manager reported and recommended to City Council, pursuant to Ordinance No. 058, 2018, that the City has received a total of $1,921,950 in private fundraising donations toward the Project, $1,603,852 of which has been appropriated, and $318,099 still requires appropriation; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the City Council find the conditions of Ordinance No. 013, 2015 are satisfied and appropriated funds may be spent for construction of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Packet Pg. 81 -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That, pursuant to the report and recommendation of the City Manager, the City has received a total of $1,921,950 in private financial donations toward the Whitewater Park Project. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the receipt of such amounts substantially satisfies the conditions contained in Ordinance No. 013, 205 and No. 058, 2018 regarding receipt by the City of at least $1,500,000 of private contributions and pledges in support of the Whitewater Park Project prior to spending appropriated funds for construction of the Project, and the such funds are now available to be spent for construction of the Project. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 82 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, at a regular City election held on April 7, 2015, the voters of the City of Fort Collins approved the extension of the expiring twenty-five hundredths percent (0.25%) capital projects sales and use tax (the “Tax”) for a period of ten years; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Tax, as outlined in the ballot measure, is the planning, design, real property acquisition, and construction of seventeen capital projects and related operation and maintenance, referred to as the Community Capital Improvement Program (“CCIP”), which includes construction of Downtown Poudre River Enhancements and a Kayak Park (the “Whitewater Park Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 013, 2015 (“Building on Basics Ordinance”), in which the City Council recognized and adopted the passage of the April 7, 2015, CCIP ballot measure, prior to use of any revenues from the Tax for construction of the Whitewater Park Project (but not before beginning planning, design, and property acquisition) the City Council must have determined, after receiving a report and recommendation from the City Manager, that the City has received at least $1,500,000 in contributions and pledges of cash and other property from private sources in support of the Whitewater Park Project, and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, the City and the Urban Renewal Authority (the “URA”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement by which the URA agreed to provide the City additional funds toward the Whitewater Park Project costs, recognizing the value of the Project in furthering the URA’s North College Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 058, 2018, appropriating additional funds for the Whitewater Park Project, including $300,000 provided by the URA, subject to the conditions that: • such additional funds may not be expended for construction of the Project until the City Manager provides a further report and recommendation indicating the City has received the full $1,500,000 in private contributions and pledges; and • the City Council adopts a resolution making a determination that such condition of Ordinance No. 013, 2015, has been fully satisfied; and WHEREAS, the City Manager reported and recommended to City Council, pursuant to the conditions in Ordinance No. 058, 2018, that the City has received a total of $1,921,950 in private fundraising donations toward the Project, $1,603,852 of which has been appropriated, and $318,099 still requires appropriation; and Packet Pg. 83 -2- WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended appropriation of the remaining $318,099 in private fund donations, as described herein, and determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the General Fund and the Capital Project Fund, as applicable, and will not cause the total amount appropriated in such funds, as applicable, to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in these funds during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of providing recreational resources for the community; 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, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places (APP) program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND NINETY-NINE DOLLARS ($318,099) for the Poudre River Whitewater Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS ($2,481) in the Capital Projects Fund - Poudre River Whitewater Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. Packet Pg. 84 -3- Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($700) in the Capital Projects Fund - Poudre River Whitewater Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 85 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer Timothy Kemp, Civil Engineer III Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $1,477,370 of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, this item will authorize the transfer of $14,774, one percent of the appropriated funds, from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. This project will construct Suniga Road to the City’s four- lane arterial roadway standards between North College Avenue and Blondel Street as identified on the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements include raised, protected bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, utility infrastructure, roadway improvements, and landscaped medians and parkways. The project will complement the existing section of Suniga Road, providing connectivity for surrounding developments from North College Avenue to Redwood Street. This project was approved during the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION As north Fort Collins continues to develop, the roadway network must be designed and constructed to support the additional vehicular and multimodal traffic associated with development. Much of the roadway network will be constructed through a partnership with development. Frequently, the City will construct key sections of the roadway network in advance of development to provide additional vehicular and multimodal connectivity. To support anticipated multimodal and vehicular growth, the City’s Master Street Plan identified a new four- lane arterial roadway, Suniga Road, as a key component of North Fort Collins transportation network. The first segment of Suniga Road between Blondel Street and Redwood Drive was constructed in 2016 in conjunction with adjacent development. To fully utilize this new segment of roadway, staff proposed a project to design and construct the section of Suniga Road between North College Avenue and Blondel Street as part of the City’s 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. The Suniga Road Improvements Project was initiated in 2017; a result of receiving community support and funds as part of the 2017/2018 BFO process. This project will extend the existing segment of Suniga Road from Blondel Street to North College Avenue, providing significant multimodal and vehicular connectivity to the 9 Packet Pg. 86 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 City’s roadway network. Improvements will include: • Raised, protected bike lanes • Pedestrian facilities • Landscaped parkways • Two lanes of travel in both directions • Raised, landscaped medians • Utility infrastructure improvements The project’s approved funding scenario identified Transportation Reserves, Utilities, and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds to design and construct the improvements. The total project budget is $3.7M, and $2.2M has been funded by the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and utility funding. Although approved during the 2017/2018 BFO cycle, staff waited to appropriate the needed TCEF funding until the final design and final construction estimate were complete. The use of TCEF funds to support this project is appropriate as the project will increase the vehicular and multimodal capacity within the North Fort Collins area. Construction is planned to be completed in 2018. Per City Code Section 23-304, all appropriations for construction projects estimated to cost over $250,000 shall include an amount equal to one percent of the estimated cost for works of art. The total Art in Public Places funds to be appropriated is $14,774. This item will transfer $11,524 of the TCEF appropriations to the Art in Public Places Program. Staff has identified the Transportation Reserves as a means to provide the additional $3,250 needed to provide long-term maintenance for the art. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This action will appropriate $1,477,370 into the Capital Projects Fund-Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, $14,774 will be transferred from the Capital Projects Fund into the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. The following is a summary of funds to be appropriated with this action: Prior Appropriated Funds 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes Transportation Reserves $1,800,000 Utilities $400,000 Funds to be Appropriated with this Action Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Funds $1,474,120 Transportation Reserves $3,250 Total Funds to be Appropriated with this Action $1,477,370 Total Current Project Budget $3,677,370 Transfer to Art in Public Places $14,774 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented project updates to the Bicycle Advisory Committee in November 2017. (Attachment 2) Staff also presented a project update to the Transportation Board in January 2018 as part of an overall Transportation Capital Projects plan discussion. As there was no action or discussion specific to the project, meeting minutes have not been included. 9 Packet Pg. 87 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has conducted numerous property owner meetings to gather feedback and concerns related to the planned improvements. Staff presented a project update to the Urban Renewal Authority in the fall or 2017. Staff has also been in contact with the North Fort Collins Business Association, providing a project update at its March 2018 meeting. Prior to construction, staff will develop and implement a unique communication and outreach plan to minimize impacts to surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Bycicle Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, November 27, 2017 (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 88 Conifer St E Sunig a Rd 9th St E Willox L n N College Ave Jefferson St E Vine Dr N Mason St N Lemay Ave ÕZYXW ³I Suniga City of Road Fort Improvements Collins Printed: March 05, 2018 Path: S:\Engineering\Projects\Capital Projects\Maps\Suniga\Suniga Road Improvements TCEF AIS.mxd Legend /Location 0 250 500 1,Project 000 1,500 2,000 Feet ATTACHMENT 1 9.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Location Map (6608 : Suniga Road Improvements Project) 2. AGENDA REVIEW Chair Caldwell reviewed the agenda. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES York made a motion, seconded by Piesman, to approve the minutes of the October 2017 meeting as amended. The amended minutes were adopted unanimously with Caldwell and Marty abstaining. 5. FOLLOW-UP FROM PRIOR MEETING/FUTURE BUSINESS 6. TRANSPORTATION BOARD REPORT – York York reported on the November Transportation Board meeting during which the Board heard a presentation on emergency vehicle notification technology being developed to inform drivers at intersections that an emergency vehicle is approaching. The Board also received an updated on Smart Cities, CSU game day operations, and special events Code changes. 7. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS/COMMENTS York reported on attending the Bicycle Friendly State results webinar put on by the League of American Bicyclists. Colorado is number 6 for bicycle friendly states. Krieg reported on the bicycle connector trail to Loveland. Piesman reported he did not attend the last Land Conservation and Stewardship Board meeting, but it was in conjunction with the regional open space meeting. E-bikes were also discussed at that meeting. Houdashelt reported the Air Quality Advisory Board discussed the City’s Strategic Plan at its last meeting. He discussed the fact that trails are mentioned only in the Culture and Recreation section and not in the Transportation section. He also reported input on City Plan was being sought at the Bicycle Projects Fair at the Discovery Museum. 8. ACTION ITEMS None. 9. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS • Suniga Protected Bike Lane Concepts – Dyer Dyer stated a portion of Suniga, a 4-lane arterial, was built with the Aspen Heights project and the section he is working on will connect College to Blondel. The existing section already has buffered bike lanes and 6 cross-section alternatives are being evaluated for the new road segment. Dyer discussed stakeholder outreach for the project and detailed the cross-section alternatives, two of which were presented at the Bike Fair. Most of the feedback received related to maintenance and comfort. The cost of both options is relatively similar; however, maintenance costs vary. The raised curb alternative is more difficult for the Streets Department to maintain than the raised design with a buffer. Bicycle Advisory Committee November 27, 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 9.2 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Bycicle Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, November 27, 2017 (6608 : Suniga Road Improvements Project) 3 Boardmembers discussed the alternatives and whether wrong-way riding is an actual or perceived problem. Benefits of the raised bike lane include ease of maintenance and greater separation. Boardmembers also discussed the necessity for appropriately spaced trees in the landscape buffer option. Boardmembers agreed the landscape buffer option with trees was their preference. Dyer stated he would return with more details once the design is finalized. • West Elizabeth and Shields Underpass – Kemp Kemp discussed the history of the underpass, recent safety improvements to the underpass, and improvements to traffic movement at the intersection given median improvements. Bike and pedestrian counts between October 1 and November 14 show and average of 2,000-2,500 users per day in both directions. Kemp stated the majority of trips are bikes; however pedestrian traffic increased drastically during the CSU home games. Kemp discussed recent safety improvements which include high traffic, slow zone markers, no passing signs, and additional mirrors and cameras. No crashes have been reported since mid-October. Boardmembers discussed safety concerns with bicyclists making left and right turns onto Shields. A boardmember asked about the composition of most accidents. Kemp replied one accident involved only a single bike. • CSU Mode Split Survey Results – Fodge Fodge, Alternative Transportation Manager for CSU, discussed recent mode split data for campus users. The census date for CSU is the first full week of February, which is when the mode survey is also completed. Aggregate data from February 2017 shows half of CSU employees and students drive to campus, 17% take the bus, 16% ride bikes, and 12% walk. Transit has become interesting due to the large student housing developments that use private shuttle buses to transport residents. Ridership data from those developments is forthcoming. Data for primary modes for students shows 1 in 3 drives to campus and 1 in 5 ride bikes. Fodge stated E-bikes are counted as bikes and electric skateboards are counted as skateboards. The vast majority of students polled live in Fort Collins. When asked about safety concerns, students responded congestion and motorist behavior are the main issues. York asked if Zagster use will be included in future surveys. Fodge replied in the affirmative and stated potential income barrier questions will also be included. Fodge stated 60% of MAX ridership is CSU related and discussed the impact of ride sharing services on mode splits. 9.2 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Bycicle Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, November 27, 2017 (6608 : Suniga Road Improvements Project) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 079, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND AND THE TRANSPORTATION FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND AND THE TRANSPORTATION FUND INTO THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR THE SUNIGA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Engineering Department initiated the Suniga Road Improvements Project in 2017 to create a new arterial roadway between College Avenue and Blondel Street, with such improvements to include construction of a complete arterial street that will include raised protected bike lines, pedestrian facilities, landscaped parkways, two lanes of travel in both directions, raised landscaped medians and utility infrastructure improvements (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project’s approved funding scenario identified Transportation Reserves, Utilities and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds to design and construct the improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project’s total budget is $3.7 million, of which $2.2 million has been funded by the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and utility funding; and WHEREAS, now that final design and construction estimates are complete, Council wishes to appropriate an additional $1,477,370 from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Funds and Transportation Reserves to the Project, which will make a total Project Budget of $3,677,370, with $14,774 of this appropriation going to the Arts in Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of enhancing roadways and other transportation related infrastructure; 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; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund, as applicable, and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund, as applicable, to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in these funds during the fiscal year; and Packet Pg. 92 -2- WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($1,474,120) for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the Transportation Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund the sum of THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,250) for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and appropriated therein. Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($11,524) in the Capital Projects Fund - Suniga Road Improvements Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. Section 5. That the unexpended appropriated amount of THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,250) in the Capital Projects Fund - Suniga Road Improvements Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. Packet Pg. 93 -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 94 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Dean Klingner, Transfort and Parking Interim General Manager Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Parking Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $359,917 of additional funds from Parking Reserves into the capital project fund to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology project and to appropriate 1% of the project to Art in Public Places. The Project includes installing sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots (the “Project”). This Project will allow Parking Services to collect occupancy and turnover rate data to improve management of downtown parking. The sensors will link to the FC Parking application (app) and show where available parking spaces are located. Phase I of the Project was completed in 2017 and installed the sensor and payment technology in the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure. Funds for the remainder of the Project include: $750k in General Fund (appropriated in 2017 for this purpose as a part of Ordinance No. 154, 2017); 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3 ($84,692, and $90,083); and Parking Fund Reserves. The total estimated cost for the Project is $1.2M. Installation of parking sensors in the Old Town Parking Structure and the Civic Center Parking Structure has been initiated with the previously appropriated funds. The additional funds are necessary to complete the on-street and parking lot portion of the Project. The anticipated completion date for the Project is by the end of 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Downtown Plan, adopted in 2017, includes a comprehensive parking dialogue and several policies related to communication and improved parking management. The parking sensor technology effort stitches together some of these policies into one cohesive project and parking system in downtown. With the introduction of the FC Parking application and sensors, the parking public will be able to find available parking in ~3,000 on-street spaces, 3 parking structures, and 3 parking lots. Additionally, the app allows payment in the parking structures and will facilitate the Pay-to-Stay option on-street. The following Downtown Plan policies are being implemented with this project: • Policy TP 2b: Parking Utilization Data -- Implement a system to collect parking utilization data on occupancy and turnover, and communicate parking availability to the public. 10 Packet Pg. 95 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 • Policy TP 2c: Parking Enforcement Adjustments -- Explore adjusting enforcement of 2-hour limited parking spaces to weekends and evenings after 5 p.m., and permit an extension of the 2-hour limit. • Policy TP 3a: Real-Time Travel Information -- Explore opportunities to continue, enhance and add real- time travel information (e.g., transit, parking availability). The opportunity to implement new technology in downtown came with the development of the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure. Utilizing existing license plate recognition (LPR) technology, which is used to enforce on- street time limits, staff can remove the gates on the parking garages and install a pre-pay system with the options of paying at a pay station or by the FC Parking App. The removal of the gates eliminates delays exiting the garages and gate repair and maintenance, and reduces staffing needs at the structures. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The project will incur ongoing costs to maintain the new technology and background technology necessary to operate. Maintenance of the phone app is also an on-going cost. Ongoing costs are estimated to be approximately $200,000/year. Revenue projections in the parking fund are adequate to cover these new costs. The project will also result in modest cost savings including maintenance and repair of the exit gates at the structures. Parking Sensor and Technology Project Funding Summary $750,000 Previously Appropriated, Ordinance 154, 2017 $90,083 Previously Appropriated, 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3 $359,917 Proposed with this Ordinance to be Appropriated from Parking Reserves* $1,200,000 Project Total $12,000 To be Transferred to Art in Public Places * Includes $84,692 previously appropriated with 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3, but returned to Parking Reserves BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The project has been presented to the Parking Advisory Board as a part of several discussions regarding the Downtown Parking Plan. The Board voted to approve the Downtown Parking Plan containing the policies in support of this project. PUBLIC OUTREACH Specific changes to technology in the parking structures were discussed at the public meetings listed below. • Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board meetings: September 7, 2017 and May 9, 2018 • Parking Advisory Board meeting: March 12, 2018 Staff also shared the information regarding technology changes at the parking structures at the following non- public meetings: • Downtown Business Association (DBA) Membership Meeting: September 9, 2017 • Downtown Business Association (DBA) Board Meeting: September 20, 2017 ATTACHMENTS 1. Parking Advisory Board minutes, March 12, 2018 (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 96 PARKING ADVISORY BOARD ATTACHMENT 1 10.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Parking Advisory Board minutes, March 12, 2018 (6865 : Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) 10.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Parking Advisory Board minutes, March 12, 2018 (6865 : Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE PARKING FUND FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING SENSOR AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE PARKING FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City’s Downtown Plan, adopted in 2017, includes a comprehensive parking dialogue and several policies related to the communication and improved parking management; and WHEREAS, to improve parking management, Parking Services has been working to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology project to install sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3,000 on- street parking spaces and 3 parking lots (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Parking Services has previously installed new sensors and payment technology in the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure and installation of parking sensors in the Old Town Parking Structure and Civic Center Parking Structure has been initiated with previously appropriated funds and will soon initiate installation of technology for the 3,000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots; and WHEREAS, additional funds are necessary to complete the Project and City staff has identified $359,917 in prior year reserves from the Parking Fund to appropriate for the Project, which, with previously appropriated amounts, would result in a total Project budget of $1,200,000, with $12,000 of that amount to be transferred to the Art in Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, with these appropriated funds, the anticipated Project completion date is the end of 2018; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of providing improved parking management options in the City’s downtown area to the public; 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; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Parking Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Parking Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and Packet Pg. 99 -2- WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the Parking Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN DOLLARS ($359,917) for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($9,360) in the Parking Fund - Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($2,640) in the Parking Fund - Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 100 -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Carol Workman, Acting Director of Police Information Services Erik Martin, Police Financial Analyst II Gerry Paul, Director of Purchasing & Risk Management Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2018, Reappropriating Funds Previously Appropriated in 2017 but not Expended and not Encumbered in 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Combined Regional Information Systems Project. B. Resolution 2018-062 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the City of Loveland for the Purpose of Sharing in the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project. C. Resolution 2018-063 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution from TriTech Software Systems. The purpose of this item is to purchase a public safety software solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). CRISP is a regional partnership with other Larimer County public safety agencies and provides a reliable public safety software solution that allows regional agencies to share police and fire data, manage incidents and provide for redundancy and continuity of operations. The current system is scheduled for replacement. The City of Loveland is joining CRISP and with the addition of Loveland and other project changes, staff is also requesting an additional appropriation of $1.98 million with the understanding that all but $288K will be reimbursed from both CRISP partner and member agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The concept of CRISP began in 2003, when Fort Collins Police Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office were seeking a public safety software system that would provide for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and Mobile Solution for their agencies. Both agencies agreed to share in the cost, use and management of the new software system and allow for other public safety agencies, known as “members” in the region to utilize the system. For many years, CRISP has provided a critical infrastructure for many agencies in Larimer County and is relied upon daily for the operations of its members. The current software system needs to be replaced and initial funding was approved in 2017 with BFO offers 29.39 and a portion of 29.2. Since receiving the original 11 Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 funding approval for the CRISP system, the City of Loveland decided to join CRISP as a partner agency. An updated intergovernmental agreement between the City, Larimer County, and the City of Loveland was negotiated and each partner will share equally in the costs, use and management of the system. The selected software vendor for the project is TriTech Software Solutions and staff is also requesting approval for an exception to the use of a competitive bid or proposal process to utilize this vendor and approval to award an agreed upon contract to TriTech. TriTech is currently the incumbent supplier for each of the CRISP members. Continuing uninterrupted with TriTech maintains technical continuity, increases probability of success, keeps costs low (would have to factor in vendor change costs if do not stay with TriTech), improves quality, and avoids schedule delays to upgrade to the new TriTech platform. TriTech has also offered a 49% software discount if we move to their software solution. TriTech Software Systems is a leader in the public safety software industry. TriTech offers a suite of software including CAD, RMS, Mobile applications and a jail records. TriTech has been selected to deploy software solutions for some of the most complex and demanding public safety operations throughout the U.S. and across the globe. As an experienced public safety solution provider across the country and within the state of Colorado, TriTech is uniquely positioned to provide the lowest risk, most cost-effective solution to the CRISP, having already successfully delivered systems meeting Colorado statute codes and state reporting requirements. The strength of TriTech’s Colorado user base will provide CRISP with ample opportunities for data sharing. Staff has extensively evaluated the TriTech system to include detailed demonstrations and functionality discussions. TriTech provides not only a comprehensive software solution that supports the needs of the agencies within CRISP, but they also meet the complex and diverse functional requirements of public safety. Staff had previously received BFO funding (in offer 29.39 and a portion of offer 29.2) for the CRISP replacement with the understanding TriTech would be the software vendor. In the event the City required a competitive bid or proposal process and identified another vendor, CRISP would likely lose both partners; The City of Loveland and Larimer County. Prior to committing to CRISP, Loveland had completed a competitive proposal process and selected TriTech. Loveland has been a CAD customer of TriTech for 20 years and have been pleased with the quality of the product and service from the vendor. Larimer County has communicated they do not want to complete a competitive proposal process and have concluded TriTech has the most effective and reliable solution for their needs. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS $3.43 million in funding was approved for expenditure in 2017 for the replacement of the CRISP system. This appropriation was not expended in 2017 as there was not sufficient time to negotiate an IGA and complete the project. The original cost and scope of the project was in anticipation of an equal sharing with Larimer County. With the addition of the City of Loveland, and other required scope changes including; additional implementation costs, data conversion costs, 3rd party applications and interfaces, hardware and system redundancy costs and network connectivity to Loveland PD, the new project cost is $5.41 million. The City of Fort Collins is the purchasing agent for the CRISP project and a request for an additional appropriation of $1.98 million is required for the project. Reimbursement and additional funding from partner and member agencies, leaves the Fort Collins specific funding needs at $288K. Reimbursement will be received as outlined in the IGA and as required per project milestone payments. Current Project $5.41 million Original Project $3.43 million Net change/ask $1.98 million Less reimbursements/funding ($1.69 million) Fort Collins General Fund Impact $288K 11 Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 3 The full appropriation request is for $5.41M which is made up of a reappropriation of $3.43M [from 2017], an additional $1.69M appropriation from funds generated through CRISP partner and member reimbursements, and an additional appropriation request of $288K from the general fund. 11 Packet Pg. 104 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REAPPROPRIATING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN 2017 BUT NOT EXPENDED AND NOT ENCUMBERED IN 2017, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES COMBINED REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT WHEREAS, since 2003, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) have cooperated in utilizing a public safety software system for computer aided dispatch, a records management system, and mobile applications, known as the Consolidated Regional Information Systems Project (“CRISP”) which has been relied upon by other public safety agencies in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the current software system needs replacement, and the City of Loveland has joined FCPS and the Sheriff’s Office as a CRISP partner in procuring a new software solution (collectively, the “Partners”); and WHEREAS, the Partners intend to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purchase of a software solution from Tritech Software Systems, whereby the Partners will share equally in the costs of the system, subject to limited exceptions for agency-specific components; and WHEREAS, as the purchasing agent for the system, the City of Fort Collins will be entitled to reimbursement from the Partners, and will receive monetary contributions to offset costs from Poudre Fire Authority, Wellington Fire Department, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. d/b/a Poudre Valley Hospital, and the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority in the estimated amount of $1,690,000; 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; and WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the amounts to be appropriated as described herein are available and currently unappropriated; and Packet Pg. 105 -2- WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to re-appropriate funds for the expenditures below, in furtherance of these expenditures authorized in 2017 for which such appropriated funds were not expended and not encumbered during 2017. 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, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the General Fund and 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 any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of procuring a software solution that will aid in the efficient provision of public safety services throughout 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 makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,430,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,690,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($288,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. Packet Pg. 106 -3- __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 107 -1- RESOLUTION 2018-062 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LARIMER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF LOVELAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHARING IN THE PURCHASE OF A PUBLIC SAFETY SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR THE COMBINED REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT WHEREAS, since 2003, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) have cooperated in utilizing a public safety software system for computer aided dispatch, a records management system, and mobile applications known as the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (“CRISP”), which has been relied upon by other public safety agencies in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the current software system needs replacement, and the City of Loveland has joined FCPS and the Sheriff’s Office as a CRISP partner in procuring a new software solution (collectively, the “Partners”); and WHEREAS, the Partners desire to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purchase of a software solution from Tritech Software Systems (“Tritech”); and WHEREAS, staff for the Partners have negotiated such an agreement (the “IGA”) whereby the City of Fort Collins will act as the purchasing agent and the Partners will share in the costs of the system equally, subject to limited exceptions for agency-specific components; and WHEREAS, the IGA also sets forth each Partner’s rights and obligations with respect to the purchase, maintenance, operation and use of the software system; and WHEREAS, the IGA provides that each Partner may enter into separate agreements with other public safety agencies in Larimer County in the form provided to allow said agencies access to the software system and to govern their use, which agreements may be executed on behalf of the City by the City Manager at a later time; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 1-22 requires, with certain exceptions, intergovernmental agreements to be submitted to the City Council for review and approval by ordinance or resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the joint purchase of a public safety software solution with the Partners is in the best interests of the City and that the Mayor should be authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement in support thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Packet Pg. 108 -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, and the City of Loveland for the purpose of setting forth their respective rights and obligations regarding the purchase, maintenance, operation and use of a public safety software solution, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit AA@, with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 109 CRISP MASTER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS CRISP MASTER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT("Agreement") is made and entered into this __ day of _______, 2018 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Fort Collins”), and the CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Loveland”) and LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the “County”). Collectively these three will hereinafter be referred to as the “Partners” and the singular “Partner” will hereafter refer to any of the three or each of the three. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Combined Regional Information Systems Project ("CRISP") is a joint effort of many public safety agencies either wholly or partly contained within the geographical area of Larimer County, Colorado; WHEREAS, CRISP is comprised of the three Partner agencies of the City of Fort Collins on behalf of Fort Collins Police Services, the City of Loveland on behalf of Loveland Police Department, Larimer County on behalf of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, and each Partner's respective Member Agencies as designated in Section 6.2 herein; WHEREAS, the Partners desire to share in the use and cost of purchasing and operating a computer aided dispatch system (“CAD”), a records management system (“RMS”), a jail management system (“JMS”), and such other ancillary systems as the Partners may choose to enhance functionality; WHEREAS, the Partners desire to enter into this Agreement in order to state their respective rights and obligations concerning the purchase, maintenance, operation and use of the System as defined in Section 2.1 herein; WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 29-1-203 provides that governments may cooperate or contract with one another to provide certain services or facilities when such cooperation or contracts are authorized thereto with the approval of its legislative body or other authority having the power to so approve; WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 29-1-203(1), the Partners are authorized to cooperate with one another to provide any function or service lawfully authorized to each of them and are therefore authorized under C.R.S. Section 29-1-203(1) to enter into this Agreement; WHEREAS, subject to approval by Fort Collins City Council, Fort Collins is further authorized to enter into agreements to provide government services or enter into cooperative or joint activities with other governmental bodies as provided in Article II, Section 16 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Section 1-22 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, Loveland is further authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements to provide any function, service, or facility as provided in the Loveland Municipal Code Section 2.08.030 and upon approval by the Loveland City Council. EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Partners' mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Partners agree as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date, and shall continue in effect indefinitely, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 13 below. 2. System. 2.1. The system to be purchased and operated pursuant to this Agreement shall consist of the equipment, software, maintenance, upgrade fees, licenses, and services purchased pursuant to a purchase contract to be executed between TriTech Software Systems, Inc. (“TriTech”) and Fort Collins, on behalf of the Partners, for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of the System that will meet the stated goals of this Agreement, and shall include additional equipment or upgrades purchased to supplement the system (the “System”). Said purchase contract with TriTech will only be executed after the form and conditions of the contract have been approved in writing by all Partners, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any changes or amendments to the purchase contract must be approved by the Partners, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 2.2. The System shall also consist of shared ancillary costs incurred by the Partners for the benefit of the System as a whole, including but not limited to, CRISP project management services, shared interfaces, and network connectivity to include fiber connectivity to the splice point at the Loveland Police Department (collectively, “Shared Ancillary Costs”). The System shall not include ancillary costs specific to the Partners and/or Member Agencies, including but not limited to, third-party application costs (evidence systems, citation applications, accident systems, court applications, etc.), agency-specific ongoing costs (third-party applications, maintenance, agency- specific vendors or consultants, agency-specific backup solutions, etc.), and agency-specific subscription fees. Such ancillary costs specific to Partners or Member Agencies shall be the sole responsibility of the specific agency incurring the costs. 3. Purchase of System, Cost Allocation, Appropriations, and Ownership. 3.1. The Partners shall cooperate in the purchase of the System, and agree that Fort Collins shall act as the purchasing agent for the System in accordance with Fort Collins' purchasing ordinances, procedures and guidelines. Fort Collins, Loveland and the County shall each be responsible for an amount equal to one-third (1/3) of the total cost of the System. The total cost of the System shall be: (1) the amount set forth in the executed purchase contract with TriTech, which contract may be amended from time to time by mutual written agreement of the Partners; and (2) Shared Ancillary Costs that shall arise during the implementation and operation of the System. 3.2. As of the date of this Agreement, the estimated total shared cost of the System is detailed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The cost of the System set forth in Exhibit A is subject to change by mutual agreement of the Partners. In the event of a change in any of the shared costs of the System, such positive or negative change shall be allocated one-third (1/3) to each Partner. 1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 3.3. Each Partner shall appropriate sufficient funds to meet the entirety of their respective one- third (1/3) cost-sharing obligations under this Agreement. Prior to the execution of a purchase contract with TriTech, Loveland and the County shall confirm to Fort Collins that each has appropriated sufficient funds to meet the entirety of their respective cost-sharing obligations under this Agreement. 3.4. For the initial System purchase and System implementation and upon invoice from Fort Collins, Loveland and the County shall each pay within thirty (30) days its one-third (1/3) share of the estimated annual cost of the System (“Estimated Annual Cost”) into a designated account to be managed by Fort Collins for funding the annual cost of the System. The initial invoice for the Estimated Annual Cost will be issued by Fort Collins contemporaneously with execution of the TriTech Contract. Subsequent invoice(s) for Estimated Annual Cost will be issued by Fort Collins on or about March 1 st of each year. Annual costs include, but are not limited to, Shared Ancillary Costs, licenses, equipment, and operations and maintenance costs. Upon completion of the System implementation Fort Collins shall invoice Loveland and the County for annual maintenance and Shared Ancillary Costs within ten (10) days of receipt of any such third-party invoice. Loveland and the County shall promptly pay such invoices within ten (10) days of receipt. Fort Collins shall provide finance and accounting administrative services for each budget year. At the close of each calendar year but no later than January 31 st of each year, Fort Collins shall promptly undertake a review and reconciliation of the amounts paid into, and the amounts expended from, the designated account. Copies of all invoices for the amounts paid shall be provided to the County and Loveland. Any amounts overpaid by the Partners shall, at each Partner’s discretion, be proportionally refunded to the Partners within thirty (30) days or credited against Partners’ future financial obligations. Any amounts underpaid shall be invoiced to each Partner and each Partner shall pay their respective share into the designated account within thirty (30) days. 3.5. Each Partner shall be responsible for one-third (1/3) of any Shared Ancillary Costs arising from the management, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the System that are not included in the Estimated Annual Cost. Unanticipated expenses shall be paid from the designated account, and shall be subject to the invoice and reconciliation process set forth in Section 3.4. 3.6. Fort Collins may collect, hold, and disburse funds belonging to Loveland and the County only as an agent of Loveland and the County, and subject to the general duties and responsibilities of an agency relationship. Fort Collins shall obtain the designated project manager’s approval of all third-party invoices prior to initiating any payments for the System and Shared Ancillary Costs. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be completed within ten (10) days. Upon request, Fort Collins shall, with respect to such funds of Loveland and the County, provide the Partners a detailed accounting of all such funds collected, held, invested and disbursed by Fort Collins. 3.7. Any grants, stipends or other outside funding or reimbursements that the Partners or a Partner obtains for the benefit of the System shall be applied or credited to each Partner in an equal percentage against the cost of the System, subject to mutual written agreement of the Partners. Each Partner retains sole discretion to use funds paid by their respective Member Agencies. 1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 3.8. The Partners shall agree in writing as to those components of the System the Partners shall jointly own ("Jointly-Owned Components"). Those components not identified as Jointly-Owned Components shall be owned individually by each respective Partner ("Individually-Owned Components"). During the life of the System, the Partners agree to work in good faith and cooperatively to allocate new components as either Jointly-Owned or Individually-Owned as said components are added, and to reallocate any components as the Partners may mutually agree in writing. A list of all System components shall be created and maintained to be shared with all Partners. 4. Maintenance. The Partners shall have full access to the entire System to perform maintenance and support activities. Each Partner will provide technicians properly trained in the operation and maintenance of the entire System, who shall share responsibility for System administration, including but not limited to operation and maintenance. Technicians shall act in accordance with operational guidelines to be developed by the Partners. The CRISP Steering Committee, referenced below in Section 5.2, shall determine any disputes among the Partners' technicians. 5. Joint Use and Operation. 5.1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, each Partner shall be responsible for its own cost of all utilities, personnel and other necessary supplies and support to properly operate the System. 5.2. The Partners shall jointly designate a CRISP Steering Committee ("CSC") to be comprised of representatives of Partner and Member Agencies. The CSC shall adopt bylaws, operational policy, and oversee all operational issues of the System. If additional funding beyond what the Partners have appropriated pursuant to this Agreement is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, each Partner may seek funding from its respective governing body. 6. Interconnection and Member Agency Use. 6.1. No Partner shall allow interconnection between the System and any other network or system without the mutual written agreement of Partners. Outside of the personnel under the direct control of each Partner, no Partner shall allow access to, and/or use of, the System without the mutual written agreement of the Partners. 6.2. Those agencies other than Partners approved for access to, and/or use of, the System shall be hereinafter referred to as a "Member Agency". Each Member Agency shall contract with a Partner to gain access to the System by executing a separate intergovernmental agreement between each Member Agency and their respective Partner. The IGA must, at minimum, contain the terms and conditions of the "CRISP Member Intergovernmental Agreement" template, attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Member IGA"). The Member IGA template has been created by, and can only be changed by, the mutual written agreement of the Partners. The foregoing notwithstanding, each Partner shall have the right to negotiate additional terms and conditions not in conflict with this Agreement or the Member IGA template. Member Agencies may connect to the System through either (a) their respective Partner's connection to the System; or (b) a new connection may be allowed upon mutual written agreement of all Partners. The financial obligations, if any, of each 1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) Member Agency shall be set forth in the Member Agency's respective Member IGA and shall be subject to the sole discretion of the contracting Partner. Member Agencies' use of the System shall be subject to the provisions of any third-party software licensing. 6.3. The Partners agree that the following agencies are preapproved Member Agencies and that, subject to the execution of Member IGAs and subject to the provisions of any third-party software licensing, such agencies are authorized to interconnect, access and/or use the System: • Colorado State University Police Department - Member Agency of the County • Estes Park Police Department - Member Agency of the County • Timnath Police Department - Member Agency of the County • Rocky Mountain National Park - Member Agency of the County • Poudre Fire Authority - Member Agency of Fort Collins • Poudre Valley Hospital Ambulance Services - Member Agency of Fort Collins • Wellington Fire Department - Member Agency of Fort Collins • Loveland Fire Rescue Authority - Member Agency of Loveland • Berthoud Fire Department - Member Agency of Loveland • Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services - Member Agency of Loveland 6.4. Nothing in this Agreement shall imply or convey upon any Member Agency the right to continued access to the System. Each Partner retains the right to revoke, at any time, its respective Member Agency’s connectivity and access to the System. 7. Confidential Information. All data, records, System operational information and other information belonging individually to any Partner or Member Agency or belonging collectively to all the Partners and Member Agencies using the System shall be confidential. Partners' and Member Agencies' access to data and records as a result of connection and use of the System shall not change the confidential nature of the information. Each Partner and Member Agency (each an "agency" and collectively "agencies" for purposes of this Section 7) shall restrict its employees' use of all data, records and other information belonging to or created by other agencies to authorized uses only. Such use does not change the ownership of the record, which shall remain with the creating or authoring agency. Each agency shall not copy, alter, download, print, or disclose data, records, or information for any use not authorized in the regular course of law enforcement business. If an open records request is made for a record, only the agency who created or authored the record may determine whether the record should be disclosed or made available. The agency receiving the request, if the record does not belong to that agency, shall in conformance with applicable law either (a) deny the record request and refer the requestor to the authoring agency or (b) shall confer with the authoring agency and obtain written consent to release the record. The obligation to make a determination regarding release of any record or data or other information in the System shall remain with the agency creating the record. Any requests for System operational information or de-identified data fields belonging to all Partners and Member Agencies shall be reviewed jointly by the Partners and any other Member Agencies whose information is being requested, and the Partners and Member Agencies, if applicable, will coordinate to provide a joint response to the request and/or production of the records for inspection as authorized or required by law. 1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 8. System Degradation. None of the Partners or their Member Agencies shall engage in any activity that might result in the degradation of the System. 9. Notice. Whenever a notice is either required or permitted to be given, it shall be given in writing and delivered personally, or delivered by the postal service, postage prepaid, to the other Partners at the addresses indicated below, or at such other addresses as may be designated in writing by a Partner: If to Fort Collins: City Manager City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 With Copy to: Chief of Police City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 If to Loveland: City Manager City of Loveland 500 East 3rd Street Loveland, Colorado 80537 With Copy to: Chief of Police City of Loveland 810 East 10th Street, Suite 100 Loveland, Colorado 80537 If to the County: County Manager Larimer County P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 With Copy to: Sheriff Larimer County 2501 Midpoint Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 10. Relationship of the Partners. The Partners enter into this Agreement as separate and independent entities and each shall maintain such status throughout the term of this Agreement. 1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 11. Liability. 11.1. Each Partner shall be responsible for any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of any action or omission of such Partner or its respective officers, employees and agents in connection with such Partner's performance of this Agreement. 11.2. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the notice requirements, defenses, immunities and limitations of liability the Partners and their respective officers, directors, councilors, employees, volunteers, and agents may have under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. Sec. 24-10-101, et. seq or to any other defenses, immunities, or limitations of liability available to the Partners by law. Each Partner shall be liable for any worker's compensation claims filed by its respective personnel arising from injuries sustained as a result of performance under this Agreement. 12. Default/Remedies. 12.1. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event any Partner should fail or refuse to perform according to the terms of this Agreement, such Partner may be declared in default thereof by any non-defaulting Partner. 12.2. In the event a Partner has been declared in default hereof, such defaulting Partner shall be allowed a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of written notice of said default from the non- defaulting Partner, within which to cure said default. In the event the default remains uncorrected at the end of the cure period, the non-defaulting Partners may elect to: (a) terminate this Agreement as to the defaulting Partner and seek damages; (b) treat this Agreement as continuing and require specific performance; or (c) avail themselves of any other remedy at law or equity. In the event of termination as to a Partner, Section 13.1 herein shall control the disposition of the Partner's assets and data as though the Partner withdrew from the Agreement. 13. Withdrawal and Termination. 13.1. Any Partner may withdraw from this Agreement at any time, without cause, upon one (1) year prior written notice to the other Partners. Upon notice, the withdrawing Partner shall be responsible for obtaining a replacement system to meet that Partner's needs. Any data contained within the System belonging to the withdrawing Partner shall be made available to the withdrawing Partner for copying, downloading, or similar manipulation appropriate to preserve such information and to transition to a new system, and if so desired by the withdrawing Partner said data shall be removed from the System. The withdrawing Partner shall retain ownership of its Individually-Owned Components. The withdrawing Partner shall release any ownership claim to Jointly-Owned Components. The withdrawing Partner shall assume all costs for meeting these terms of termination. 13.2. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the mutual written agreement of the governing bodies of the Partners. Upon termination, each Partner shall retain ownership of its Individually-Owned Components. The remaining Jointly-Owned Components of the System shall be distributed or disposed of pro rata to the Partners by mutual written agreement. If the Partners are unable to agree to the distribution of the remaining portions of the System, then such portions 1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) shall be sold by Fort Collins and the proceeds distributed equally to each Partner. The Partners shall cooperate to make data available to the respective Partners and Member Agencies for copying, downloading, or similar manipulation to preserve such information and to transition to a new system. 14. Non-waiver. No waiver by any of the Partners of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition of this Agreement, nor shall a waiver of any breach of this Agreement be deemed to be or construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof. 15. Non-appropriation. 15.1. The Partners are all governmental entities; therefore, all direct and indirect financial obligations of a Partner under this Agreement shall be subject to annual appropriations pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, their respective charters and ordinances, and applicable law. This Agreement and the obligations of the Partners hereunder do not constitute a multi-year fiscal obligation and are expressly contingent upon the Partners' respective governing bodies budgeting and appropriating the funds necessary to fulfill the Partners' respective obligations hereunder. 15.2. If any Partner does not appropriate funds sufficient to meet its obligations under this Agreement, such non-appropriation will constitute a termination by such Partner, effective on January 1 of the Partner's fiscal year for which the funds are not appropriated regardless of any notice period required in this Agreement. The non-appropriating Partner shall give written notice of such non-appropriation of funds to the other Partners not later than thirty (30) days after it is certain that its governing body will fail to appropriate the funds necessary for the Partner to meet its financial obligations for the ensuing fiscal year. 16. Assignment. No Partner may assign any rights or delegate any duties under this Agreement without the written consent of the other Partners. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, along with all exhibits and other documents incorporated herein, shall constitute the entire agreement of the Partners and supersedes any prior agreement between the Partners. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the Partners' respective successors and assigns. Covenants or representations not contained in this Agreement shall not be binding on the Partners. No amendment to this Agreement shall be enforceable unless in writing and signed by all three Partners. Course of performance, no matter how long, shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement. 1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 18. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Colorado and venue for any action arising hereunder shall be in Larimer County, Colorado. 19. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Partners and shall not be construed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party shall have a right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 20. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement. 21. Authority. The persons who sign and execute this Agreement represent that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement in their individual or representative capacity. 22. Counterpart Signatures. The Partners agree that counterpart signatures of this Agreement and signatures by facsimile or electronic PDF shall be acceptable and that execution of the Agreement in such form by each and every Partner shall be deemed to constitute full and final execution of the Agreement. [signature pages follow] 1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a Colorado Municipal Corporation. By: Wade O. Troxell, Mayor Date: ATTEST: City Clerk (Printed Name) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney (Printed Name) 1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) THE CITY OF LOVELAND For the City: A Municipal Corporation Mayor Jacki Marsh Signature: Date: ATTEST: ____________________________________ Acting City Clerk Approved as to legal form: _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney 1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO For the County: A political subdivision of the State of Colorado Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado Name: Title: Signature: Date: ATTEST: Approved as to legal form: __________________________ Assistant County Attorney 1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) CRISP MEMBER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS CRISP MEMBER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("CRISP Member IGA") is made and entered into this __ day of ______, 2018 ("Effective Date"), by and between ______________________ ("Partner"), and ____________________ ("Member Agency"). Collectively, Partner and Member Agency shall be referred to as "Parties" and the singular "Party" will hereafter refer to either or each of them. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (“CRISP”) is a joint effort of many public safety agencies either wholly or partly contained within the geographical area of Larimer County, Colorado; WHEREAS, CRISP is comprised of three partner agencies, consisting of the City of Fort Collins on behalf of Fort Collins Police Services, the City of Loveland on behalf of the Loveland Police Department, and Larimer County on behalf of Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, collectively referred to as the “CRISP Partners”. The CRISP Partners have executed the CRISP Master Intergovernmental Agreement among them, hereafter referred to as the “CRISP Master IGA;” WHEREAS, the CRISP Master IGA was executed for the specific intent of purchasing and operating a computer aided dispatch system (“CAD”), a records management system (“RMS”), a jail management system (“JMS”) and such other ancillary systems the CRISP Partners choose to enhance functionality (collectively, the “System”); WHEREAS, the CRISP Partners desire to allow access to and use of the System by other agencies in Larimer County; WHEREAS, each of the CRISP Partners has specific agencies with which they have an established relationship to provide access to public safety information and services. These agencies are considered to be “Member Agencies” of their respective Partner. A list of preapproved Member Agencies is set forth in the “CRISP Master IGA”. This CRISP Member IGA defines the terms of access to the System and is executed between Partner and Member Agency in accordance with the “CRISP Master IGA”; WHEREAS, to facilitate communication and cooperation between emergency services agencies in Larimer County, including Member Agency, Partner agrees to allow Member Agency access to and use of the System pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein and consistent with the CRISP Master IGA; WHEREAS, the form of this CRISP Member IGA conforms to the requirements of the CRISP Master IGA. WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 29-1-203 provides that governments may cooperate or contract with one another to provide certain services or facilities when such cooperation or contracts are authorized thereto with the approval of its legislative body or other authority having the power to so approve; and 1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 29-1-203(1), Partner and Member Agency are authorized to cooperate with one another to provide any function or service lawfully authorized to each of them and are therefore authorized under C.R.S. Section 29-1-203(1) to enter into this CRISP Member IGA. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties’ mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Term. This CRISP Member IGA shall be effective as of the Effective Date, and shall continue in effect unless otherwise terminated as provided in paragraph 15, below. 2. Access to System. The Partner will provide the software necessary for the Member Agency to access the System. All other equipment required by the Member Agency, including hardware and additional software, and any other costs incurred by the Member Agency in accessing and using the System are solely the responsibility of the Member Agency. 3. Steering Committee. The CRISP Partners have jointly designated a CRISP Steering Committee (“CSC”), as required by the CRISP Master IGA, which shall adopt bylaws, operational policy, and oversee all operational issues of the System. The Member Agency agrees to comply with and be bound by the bylaws, policies, procedures, and decisions of the CSC regarding access to and use of the System. 4. Interconnection and System Degradation. The Member Agency shall not allow any party other than authorized personnel of the Member Agency to access or interconnect to the System through the Member Agency without the written mutual consent of the CRISP Partners. The Member Agency shall not engage in any activity that might result in the degradation of the System or data contained within the System. 5. Confidential Information. All data, records, System operational information and other information belonging individually to any Partner or the Member Agencies or belonging collectively to all the participating agencies using the System shall be confidential. Partner’s and Member Agency’s access to data and records as a result of connection and use of the System shall not change the confidential nature of the information. Partner and Member Agency (each an “agency” and collectively “agencies” for purposes of this Section 5) shall restrict its authorized personnel’s use of all data, records and other information belonging to or created by other agencies to authorized uses only. Such use does not change the ownership of the record, which shall remain with the creating or authoring agency. Each agency shall not copy, alter, download, print, or disclose data, records, or information for any use not authorized in the regular course of law enforcement business. If an open records 1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) request is made for a record, only the agency who created or authored the record may determine whether the record should be disclosed or made available. The agency receiving the request, if the record does not belong to that agency, shall in conformance with applicable law either (a) deny the record request and refer the requestor to the authoring agency or (b) shall confer with the authoring agency and obtain written consent to release the record. The obligation to make a determination regarding release of any record or data or other information in the System shall remain with the agency creating the record. Any requests for System operational information or de-identified data fields belonging to all CRISP Partners and Member Agencies shall be reviewed jointly by the three CRISP Partners and any other Member Agencies whose information is being requested, and the CRISP Partners and Member Agencies, if applicable, will coordinate to provide a joint response to the request and/or production of the records for inspection as authorized or required by law. 6. Software Licenses. The CRISP Partners have been granted licenses by their suppliers to use certain software applications as part of the System. The Member Agency shall not, and shall not permit any other party to, make any alteration, modification or enhancement to any licensed or sublicensed application, nor shall the Member Agency permit any other party to use a licensed or sublicensed application without the express consent of the CRISP Partners. The Member Agency shall not, and shall not permit any other party to disassemble, de-compile or reverse-engineer any licensed or sublicensed application. The Member Agency shall not violate the terms and conditions of any System software license. 7. Liability. Each of the Parties hereto shall be solely responsible for any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of any actions or omissions of their respective officers, employees, and agents, and shall not be responsible or legally liable for the negligent acts or willful misconduct of the other Party, its officers, employees and agents. In no event shall the CRISP Partners be liable for any loss or damages related to the operation or failure of the System or any component thereof, or for the accuracy or completeness of data, nor shall the CRISP Partners be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damages. Nothing in this CRISP Member IGA shall be construed as a waiver of the notice requirements, defenses, immunities and limitations of liability the Parties and their respective officers, directors, employees, volunteers, and agents may have under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, et seq.), or of any other defenses, immunities, or limitations of liability available to the Parties by law. 8. Ownership, Upgrades and Maintenance. This CRISP Member IGA does not grant the Member Agency, nor shall the Member Agency have, any ownership interest in the System or its components. The CRISP Partners are solely responsible for maintenance of, and upgrades to, the System, and the Member Agency may only request service, upgrades or changes to the System through the Partner personnel tasked with System administration. 1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 9. Relationship of the Parties. The Parties enter into this CRISP Member IGA as separate and independent entities and shall maintain such status throughout the term of this CRISP Member IGA. The Partner shall be the Member Agency's point of contact for all requests pursuant to Paragraph 8 of this CRISP Member IGA, or for any other issues regarding the Member Agency's access to and use of the System. 10. Other Users. The CRISP Partners may allow use of the System by other Member Agencies in addition to the Member Agency. Neither the Partner nor the CRISP Partners shall be responsible for misuse of the Member Agency's data by such other agencies. The CRISP Partners agree that they will execute a substantially similar agreement to this CRISP Member IGA with such other agencies which will include a requirement that such other agencies agree to the exact terms of Paragraph 5 before granting such agencies access to the System. 11. Joint Maintenance Payments. The CRISP Partners agree that they will enter into a maintenance agreement with the vendor of the System for system maintenance. The Partner’s portion of this expense will include the amount that is attributable to the Member Agency. The Member Agency will reimburse the Partner for the Member Agency's portion of the maintenance expense as follows: • The Member Agency's initial share of the annual maintenance expense is $_____. Member Agency shall pay said amount to the Partner annually starting on <Date> and continuing annually for the duration of this CRISP Member IGA, or as may be mutually agreed in writing between Member Agency and Partner. • At the beginning of each calendar year the Partner may review the Member Agency's use of the System in the previous year to determine if the percentage of use has changed significantly. If a change in percentage of use is found, or if overall maintenance costs change the Partner may alter the Member Agency’s annual maintenance expense. In such case the Partner will work in good faith with the Member Agency to set a mutually agreeable revised cost. All maintenance payments by Member Agency pursuant to this Paragraph 11 are subject to annual appropriation as provided for in Paragraph 18 of this CRISP Member IGA. • In the event the Member Agency disagrees with an invoiced maintenance expense, the Member Agency shall contact the Partner in writing and the Parties will attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith. If the dispute remains unresolved as of <Date>, the Member Agency's portion of the maintenance expense shall be as set forth in the invoice and payment shall be due on or before <Date> of the following year unless the Member Agency terminates this CRISP Member IGA pursuant to Paragraph 15, in which case the terms of that Paragraph shall apply. 1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 12. No Representations or Warranties. The CRISP Partners collectively and Partner individually make no representations or warranties as to the adequacy, capacity or availability of the System. 13. Amendment. No amendment or other modification to this CRISP Member IGA shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties. Course of performance, no matter how long, shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement. 14. Assignment. The Member Agency may not assign any rights or delegate any duties under this CRISP Member IGA without the prior written consent of the CRISP Partners. 15. Termination. The Partner or the Member Agency may terminate this CRISP Member IGA at any time by providing one (1) year prior written notice to the other Party. Upon such termination, the Member Agency shall promptly return any software, documentation, data, or other property of the Partner or the CRISP Partners in the Member Agency's possession. In addition, the Partner shall calculate the Member Agency's share of maintenance expenses incurred but unpaid, if any, up to the date of termination. The Partner shall invoice the Member Agency for any such unpaid amounts and the Member Agency shall remit payment within thirty (30) days of receipt. 16. Notice. All notices provided for under this CRISP Member IGA shall be effective when mailed, postage prepaid, and sent to the following addresses: If to the Partner: <contact title/position> <address> <contact info> With a copy to: <agency CEO or attorney> <address> <contact info> If to the Member Agency: <contact title/position> <address> <contact info> 1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) With a copy to: <agency CEO or attorney> <address> <contact info> 17. Default/Remedies. 17.1 Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event any Party should fail or refuse to perform according to the terms of this CRISP Member IGA, such Party may be declared in default thereof by any non-defaulting Party. 17.2 In the event a Party has been declared in default hereof, such defaulting Partner shall be allowed a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of written notice of said default from the non- defaulting Party, within which to cure said default. In the event the default remains uncorrected at the end of the cure period, the non-defaulting Party may elect to: (a) terminate this CRISP Member IGA and seek damages; (b) treat this CRISP Member IGA as continuing and require specific performance; or (c) avail itself of any other remedy at law or equity. 18. Non-appropriation. The Parties are governmental entities; therefore, all direct and indirect financial obligations of a party under this CRISP Member IGA shall be subject to annual appropriations pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, the Parties’ respective charters and ordinances if any, and applicable law. This CRISP Member IGA and the obligations of the Parties hereunder do not constitute a multi-year fiscal obligation and are expressly contingent upon the Parties’ respective governing bodies budgeting and appropriating the funds necessary to fulfill the Parties’ respective obligations. If a Party does not appropriate funds sufficient to meet its obligations under this CRISP Member IGA, such non-appropriation will constitute a termination by such Party, effective on January 1 of the Party’s fiscal year for which the funds are not appropriated regardless of any notice period required under this CRISP Member IGA. The non-appropriating Party shall give written notice of such non-appropriation of funds to the other Party not later than thirty (30) days after it is certain that its governing body will fail to appropriate the funds necessary for the Party to meet its financial obligations for the ensuing fiscal year 19. Non-waiver. No waiver by either of the Parties of any of the terms and conditions of this CRISP Member IGA shall be deemed to be or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition of this CRISP Member IGA, nor shall a waiver of any breach of this CRISP Member IGA be deemed to be or construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof. 20. Governing Law and Venue. This CRISP Member IGA shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue for any action arising hereunder shall be in Larimer County, Colorado. 1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) 21. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This CRISP Member IGA is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and shall not be construed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party shall have a right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 22. Severability. In the event any provision of this CRISP Member IGA shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this CRISP Member IGA. 23. Authority. The persons who sign and execute this CRISP Member IGA represent that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement in their individual and representative capacity. 24. Entire Agreement. This CRISP Member IGA shall constitute the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes any prior agreement between the Parties in conflict. All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations, possible alleged agreements, representations, covenants, and warranties concerning the subject matter hereof are merged herein. This CRISP Member IGA shall inure to the benefit of the Parties' respective successors and assigns. Covenants or representations not contained in this Agreement shall not be binding on the Parties. 25. Negotiated Provisions. This CRISP Member IGA shall not be construed more strictly against one Party than against the other merely by virtue of the fact that it may have been prepared by counsel for one of the Parties, it being acknowledged that each party has contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of this CRISP Member IGA. 26. Counterpart Signatures. The Parties agree that counterpart signatures of this CRISP Member IGA and signatures by facsimile or electronic PDF shall be acceptable and that execution of the CRISP Member IGA in the same form by each Party shall be deemed to constitute full and final execution of the CRISP Member IGA. 27. Additional Documents or Action. Each Party agrees, at the reasonable request of any other Party, to make such further assurances and to execute such further instruments in order that this CRISP Member IGA may be fully performed in accordance with its intent and provisions. [Signature page follows.] 1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) [insert signature block] 1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit A (6883 : CRISP Project - Software IGA RESO) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-063 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE USE OF A COMPETITIVE PROCESSFOR THE PURCHASE OF A PUBLIC SAFETY SOFTWARE SOLUTION FROM TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS WHEREAS, Section 8-161(d)(1)(b) of the City Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to negotiate the purchase of supplies and services without utilizing a competitive bidding or proposal process where the Purchasing Agent determines that although there is more than one source, the competitive process cannot reasonably be used, or if used will result in a substantially higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City’s financial interests or will substantially impede the City’s administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public; and WHEREAS, since 2003, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) have cooperated in utilizing a public safety software system for computer aided dispatch, a records management system, and mobile applications, which has been relied upon by other public safety agencies in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the current software system needs replacement, and the City of Loveland (“Loveland”) has joined FCPS and the Sheriff’s Office as a partner (collectively, the “Partners”) in procuring a new software solution to include software, hardware and support services; and WHEREAS, the staff from the Partners have selected Tritech Software Systems (“Tritech”) as the software vendor to provide computer aided dispatch, a records management system, mobile applications, and a jail management system; and WHEREAS, in making that selection, the Partners relied in part on a request for proposals issued by Loveland for a records management system, under which Loveland selected Tritech, which had already been providing Loveland computer aided dispatch and mobile applications; and WHEREAS, Tritech is the current incumbent software solution vendor for the Partners, and continuing with Tritech maintains technical continuity, increases probability of success, keeps costs low, improves quality and reduces the likelihood schedule delays in upgrading to the new software solution; and WHEREAS, Tritech has also offered a forty-nine percent (49%) software discount if the Partners continue to use Tritech as their software provider; and WHEREAS, the estimated total cost for the public safety software solution from Tritech is $4,700,000; and WHEREAS, City Council appropriated $3,430,000 in 2017 for replacement of the software system and associated hardware, which appropriation was not expended because the Partners did not complete negotiation of an intergovernmental agreement or the terms of a purchase agreement with Tritech before the close of 2017; and Packet Pg. 131 -2- WHEREAS, the Partners will share the cost of the system equally, and City will be entitled to reimbursement from the Partners pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement being presented to City Council concurrent with this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City will receive additional funding from Poudre Fire Authority, Wellington Fire Department, and Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. d/b/a Poudre Valley Hospital, who will be considered Member agencies by separate agreement, and from the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority; and WHEREAS, the City’s Purchasing Agent has determined that although there is more than one source for public safety software solutions, the competitive process, if used, would result in a substantially higher cost to the City, would otherwise injure the City’s financial interests, and would substantially impede the City’s administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Purchasing Agent and other City staff recommend the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, Section 8-161(d)(3) of the City Code requires prior approval of this purchasing method by the City Council for all procurements which exceed $200,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the purchase of a public safety software solution from Tritech Software Systems, as an exception to the City’s competitive purchasing process requirements, for the reasons set forth herein, and authorizes the Purchasing Agent to negotiate and execute a purchase agreement. Section 3. That the Purchasing Agent may use this approval, as authorized in City Code Section 8-161(d)(4), as the basis for negotiating the additional purchase of services from Tritech Software Systems at any time within a period of five (5) years from the date of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 132 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF John Phelan, Energy Services Manager Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue From Bloomberg Philanthropies in the Light and Power Fund for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/On-Bill Financing Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $100,000 in grant revenues from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, into the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Enterprise fund for the purposes of developing and capitalizing the Utilities On-Bill Financing program (OBF). The OBF provides utility bill serviced loans for energy efficiency capital improvements, and the Bloomberg project within this program will focus on funding improvements to advance efficiency in rental properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Bloomberg Mayors Challenge In February 2018, Fort Collins was one of 35 Champion Cities selected from 320 applications as part of the 2018 U.S. Mayors Challenge, which provides grants and technical assistance to city leaders who are solving urgent problems in their communities. As part of being selected as one of the Champion Cities, Bloomberg Philanthropies (Bloomberg) awarded Fort Collins a $100,000 grant to develop a program that would improve the energy efficiency of low- to moderate-income rental households. Mayor Wade Troxell selected the theme of “Climate Economy” as the innovative idea for the Bloomberg competition application. The Climate Economy refers to the notion that economic prosperity can occur without high carbon emissions. In Fort Collins, nearly 50% of low- to moderate-income residents live in rental housing, much of which is inefficient and contributes to health and economic disparities in the community. The City’s proposed Bloomberg project is to develop public-private partnerships that help catalyze the renovation of thousands of single- and multi-family rental properties. The strategy includes helping property owners finance these improvements by granting low-cost, short-term loans repaid through their utility bills, known as “on-bill financing” (OBF) which is a program currently offered by the City. Bloomberg Philanthropies works in over 120 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation, and Public Health. In 2016, Bloomberg distributed $600 million. For more information, go to www.bloomberg.org <http://www.bloomberg.org>. 12 Packet Pg. 133 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 2 On-Bill Financing 2.0 The City of Fort Collins’ 2013 - 2016 On-Bill Financing Program successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a Utility department-managed, private sector-driven strategy to reduce carbon emissions through loans for residential energy efficiency building upgrades, in collaboration with external partners, including contractors, equipment suppliers and area homeowners. In late 2016, the City transitioned from the successful on-bill financing methodology to a 3rd party commercial model. Although the new structure aligns with City and Utilities current financial requirements, the 3rd party financing program has failed to achieve acceptable results for broad system and community impacts. In order to achieve community energy and climate goals, as adopted by City Council, a “reboot” and upgrade of the original approach is required - On-Bill Finance 2.0. The OBF2.0 reboot will: • Materially contribute to the City’s energy and climate objectives, particularly the 2030 climate and energy goals (CAP). Research and analysis contained herein indicates that OBF2.0 will be a critical factor in Fort Collins likelihood of achieving these CAP goals; • Expand equitable participation of low and moderate income (LMI) households in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; • Establish a scalable public private partnership (PPP) social impact model that incents the private sector and residents to upgrade aging building stock in an affordable, cost effective manner; • Spur the start, strengthening and/or expansion of new and existing energy efficiency related businesses and jobs in Fort Collins; and • Obtain non-recourse, private-sector debt capital to fund new energy efficiency loans for homes and businesses. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds have been received and entered into the appropriate Utilities account. The appropriation of these funds will enable Utilities to move forward with the initial phases of the OBF 2.0 project. Up to 10% of the funds may be used for development of the Bloomberg related aspects of the program. The remaining funds will be used as revolving capital for customer loans. While no matching funds are required, OBF 2.0 will require additional capital funds to scale over time. The State of Colorado Energy Office (CEO) has agreed to fund up to $1M to Fort Collins to relaunch of OBF. This funding from the CEO is expected to be a combination of grants and loans. Additional third-party, private-sector capital sources will be added to develop a sustainable financial model. 12 Packet Pg. 134 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 082, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FROM BLOOMBERG PHILANTHROPIES IN THE LIGHT AND POWER FUND FOR THE HOME EFFICIENCY LOAN PROGRAM/ON-BILL FINANCING (OBF) PROGRAM WHEREAS, under Ordinance No. 033, 2012, the City established a Home Efficiency Loan Program, also known as On-Bill Utility Financing (OBF), which enabled Fort Collins Utilities to offer financing and on-bill servicing of customer loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy upgrade projects; and WHEREAS, between 2013 through 2016, OBF provided low-cost financing for energy efficiency, solar photovoltaic, and water conservation improvements, in support of Utilities’ efficiency and conservation efforts, and policy goals from Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the City transitioned the funding methodology for OBF to a third- party commercial model relying on an outside financing partner; and WHEREAS, the rate of OBF residential customer energy efficiency building upgrades under the third-party commercial loan model has lagged below levels required to achieve City energy and climate policy goals; and WHEREAS, in February 2018, the City was selected as a Champion City as part of the 2018 U.S. Mayors' Challenge competition; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with selection as a Champion City, Bloomberg Philanthropies awarded the City a $100,000 grant to develop a program to improve energy efficiency of low- to moderate-income rental households; and WHEREAS, Utility Services staff and the City Manager recommend appropriating the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant to "reboot" the OBF program to increase participation by low- and moderate-income households in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and thereby increase the City’s progress toward its 2030 energy and climate objectives; 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, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Electric Utility Light and Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and Packet Pg. 135 -2- WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6 of the City Charter permits the City Council to approve expenditure of utility funds for renewals, replacements, extraordinary repairs, extension, improvements, enlargements and betterments of each Utility enterprise or other specific utility purpose determined by Council to be beneficial to the ratepayers of such Utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is desirable to enhance the program incentives and financing options for new Home Efficiency Loan Program/OBF loans and provide flexibility in the administration of those loans, in furtherance of the conservation benefits available to ratepayers through the OBF program, as required by Article XII, Section 6 of the City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That, for the reasons stated above, the City Council hereby finds and determines that applying the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant to enhance the program incentives and financing options for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/OBF program, as described herein, will be for the betterment of the affected Utilities and serve utility purposes beneficial to the ratepayers of those Utilities by promoting and increasing energy and water conservation and efficiency and reducing the need for additional resources to provide such utility services. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the Light and Power Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) for the purposes of developing and capitalizing the OBF program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. Packet Pg. 136 -3- __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 137 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Sara Lynd, Police Sergeant Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant Bronwyn Scurlock, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Amending City Code, Chapter 17 - Miscellaneous Offenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles, and Disorderly Conduct. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. The purpose of this item is to amend certain Sections of Chapter 17 regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct to be consistent with state statutes; to amend Section 17-122 to make that section more specific to prohibit staying on medians in locations where safety issues arise given median width, traffic volumes, and/or traffic speed; and to eliminate Section 17-127 in its entirety pertaining to panhandling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles and Disorderly Conduct. The Colorado General Assembly has amended the state statues regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct. This Ordinance will bring our Code sections pertaining to these offenses in line with the state statutes. Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. The “Staying on medians prohibited” in City Code Section 17-122 was added in 2011 to address safety concerns around pedestrians loitering in close proximity to vehicle travel lanes and in locations (medians) 13 Packet Pg. 138 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 2 where pedestrians may not be expected (as opposed to along roadside edges). The current ordinance prohibits staying on medians less than thirty (30) feet wide for longer than is reasonably necessary to cross the street. In the past year, staff has been reviewing this section of the Code and is recommending that the language be tailored to address median locations where staff has identified that serious safety concerns exist for pedestrians based on median width, vehicular speed and/or volume of traffic. The proposed changes prohibit staying on medians that are: • less than 8 feet wide, or; • less than 18 feet wide and adjacent street vehicular volumes exceed 15,000 vehicles/day, or; • less than 18 feet wide and adjacent street speed limit is 35 mph or more. A map with all prohibited median locations will be available on-line to put the public on notice of the prohibited locations, and to ensure Fort Collins Police Services can properly enforce such locations. Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. On February 10, 2015, five individual plaintiffs and Greenpeace, Inc. filed in Colorado Federal District Court a class-action lawsuit against the City. On February 27, 2015, City Council repealed seven specific time, place, and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127. Four panhandling restrictions remain in the City Code, and cover unlawful behaviors including disorderly conduct, harassment, disturbing the peace, obstruction of a passageway and assault. These criminal behaviors are already specifically addressed in Chapter 17 as follows: Section 17-124 (Disorderly Conduct), Section 17-126 (Harassment), Section 17-121 (Disturbing the Peace), Section 17-128 (Obstructing a Highway or Passageway), and Section 17-21 (Assault). This duplication causes unnecessary confusion among officers, and therefore, Fort Collins Police Services recommends eliminating the misdemeanor crime of panhandling in its entirety. ATTACHMENTS 1. Justification for Medians Selected (PDF) 13 Packet Pg. 139 Justification for Medians Selected for Ordinance No. 084, 2018 In this Ordinance, certain medians have been selected for regulation based on traffic volume and traffic speeds. Traffic Volume Traffic volume correlates to crash risk. As can be seen below, the higher the traffic volume, the greater the risk of a crash. 15,000 vehicles per day was selected because that is the point at which Traffic Engineers begin considering the need for 4-lane roads that are indicative of a more complex and challenging urban environment. Source: Colorado Department of Transportation ATTACHMENT 1 13.1 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Justification for Medians Selected (6861 : Chapter 17 Code Amendments) Traffic Speed Traffic speed correlates to crash severity. The higher the speed, the more severe the crash tends to be. We selected 35 mph as a threshold because the risk of death tends to increase most rapidly starting about that point. Source: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 13.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Justification for Medians Selected (6861 : Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 083, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLES III, IV, VI, AND VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO TRESPASS, THEFT, LITTERING, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, RESISTING ARREST, THROWING OF MISSILES AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has amended the state statutes regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends amending City Code provisions regarding these offenses to conform with state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interests of the City to approve the changes to the City Code that have been recommended by Fort Collins Police Services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 17-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Enter or remain unlawfully shall mean: (1) To enter or remain in or upon privately owned property when not licensed, invited, privileged or otherwise authorized to do so; (2) To enter or remain in or upon publicly owned property that is not open to the public; (3) To fail to leave property, whether privately or publicly owned, after being directed to do so by a person lawfully in control of the property; or (4) To conduct oneself in a public place in violation of any rule or regulation issued by any officer or agency having the power of control, management, or supervision thereof, which limits or prohibits the use, activities or conduct in such public place, provided that the rule or regulation is: (i) prominently posted at all Packet Pg. 142 -2- public entrances to the property; (ii) posted in such a way as to be clearly visible from the site of the infraction; or (iii) actually known to the offender. . . . Litter shall mean all rubbish, waste material, refuse, garbage, trash, debris, or other foreign substances, solid or liquid, of every form, size, kind, and description. . . . Section 3. That Section 17-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-36. Theft. No person shall knowingly obtain, retain, or exercise control over anything of value of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) of another without authorization or by threat or deception when such person: (1) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or (2) Knowingly uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (3) Uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (4) Demands any consideration to which he or she is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person; or (5) Knowingly retains the thing of value more than seventy-two hours after the agreed-upon time of return in any lease or hire agreement. Section 4. That Section 17-37 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety and this Section number shall become reserved. Sec. 17-37. Theft of rental property. No person shall: (1) Obtain the temporary use of personal property of another, which is available only for hire, by means of threat or deception, or knowing that such use is without the consent of the person providing the personal property; or Packet Pg. 143 -3- (2) Having lawfully obtained possession for temporary use of the personal property of another which is available only for hire, knowingly fail to reveal the whereabouts of or to return the property to the owner thereof or a representative of the owner or to the person from whom the property was received within seventy-two (72) hours after the time at which the person agreed to return it where the value of the thing involved is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.). Section 5. That Section 17-39 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-39. Criminal mischief. No person shall knowingly injure, damage or destroy the real or personal property of one (1) or more other persons, including property owned by the person jointly with another person or property owned by the person in which another person has a possessory or proprietary interest, in the course of a single criminal episode where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.). Section 6. That Section 17-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-41. Littering. (a) No person shall throw, deposit, scatter or leave any litter upon any sidewalk, alley, street or other public place, in any waters, or on any private property any loose paper, rags, rubbish, waste material, refuse, garbage, trash, debris or other foreign substances, nor shall any person owning or occupying any lot or ground allow or permit any such material litter which may be liable to be blown or scattered by the wind or otherwise to remain upon such lot or grounds. (b) For the purposes of this Section, the distribution of advertising circulars or handbills in such manner so that they are securely placed or deposited upon real property so as to prevent the same from being blown or scattered by the wind does not constitute littering. (c) Whenever litter is thrown, deposited, dropped, or dumped from any motor vehicle in violation of this section, the operator of said motor vehicle is presumed to have caused or permitted the litter to be so thrown, deposited, dropped, or dumped therefrom. Section 7. That Section 17-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-64. - Resisting arrest. (a) No person shall prevent or attempt to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of official authority, from effecting an arrest of any person by: Packet Pg. 144 -4- (1) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (2) Using any other means which creates substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another. (b) A peace officer is acting under color of official authority when, in the course of his or her duties, the peace officer is called upon to make or does in fact make a good faith judgment based on surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Section that the arrest was unlawful if the peace officer was acting under color of official authority and did not use unreasonable or excessive force in effecting the arrest. A peace officer acts “under color of official authority” when, in the regular course of assigned duties, such officer is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made. (c) The term “peace officer” as used in this Section means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself or herself by exhibiting credentials as such peace officer to the person who arrest is attempted. Section 8. That Section 17-102 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-102. - Throwing of missiles. (a) No person shall throw any stones, snowballs or missiles upon or at any vehicle, building or other public or private property or upon or at any person in any public place. (b) As used in this section, missile means any object or substance. Section 9. That Section 17-124 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-124. - Disorderly conduct. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly: (1) Make a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture or display in a public place when such utterance, gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or (2) Fight with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or (3) Not being a peace officer, display a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.; or Packet Pg. 145 -5- (4) Make unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that such person has no right to occupy; or (5) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting or the ritual discharge of blank ammunition cartridges as an attendee at a funeral for a deceased person who was a veteran of the armed forces of the United states; or (6) An offense under subsection (1) or (4) of this section is a petty offense; except that, if the offense is committed with intent to disrupt, impair, or interfere with a funeral, or with intent to cause severe emotional distress to a person attending a funeral, it is a misdemeanor. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 146 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO STAYING ON MEDIANS WHEREAS, in 2011, Fort Collins Police Services encountered persons occupying the medians within the City for extended periods of time and were concerned with the safety risks to pedestrians and motorists; and WHEREAS, to address those safety concerns, Fort Collins Police Services brought forward, and City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2011, that added a new Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins prohibiting persons from standing on medians less than 30 feet wide for longer than reasonably necessary to cross the street; and WHEREAS, staff has now reviewed the 30-foot width provision in order to craft more narrowly tailored language using specific criteria not only including median width, but also vehicular speed and/or volume of traffic; and WHEREAS, staff has proposed amending the Code to prohibit persons from standing on medians at locations where such medians are less than eight feet wide, or less than 18 feet wide with adjacent street vehicular volume exceeding 15,000 vehicles a day, or less than 18 feet wide with adjacent street speed limit that is 35 miles per hour or more; and WHEREAS, such criteria have enabled staff to identify the medians within the City that pose the greatest safety concern to both pedestrians and motorists when persons are standing on such medians longer than reasonably necessary to cross the street; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve such changes to the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 17-122 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-122. - Staying on medians prohibited. (a) No person shall stand or be upon a median of any street for longer than is reasonably necessary to cross the street. (b) For the purposes of this Section, median shall mean: Packet Pg. 147 -2- (1) The area of a street, generally in the middle, whichthat separates traffic traveling in one direction from traffic traveling in another direction, or whichthat, at intersections, separates traffic turning left from traffic proceeding straight. Such an area is physically defined by curbing, landscaping or other physical obstacles to the area's use by motor vehicles, or by traffic control markings whichthat prohibit use of a portion of the pavement of a street by motor vehicles other than to drive generally perpendicularly across the markings, or to wait there awaiting the opportunity to cross or merge with the opposing lanes of traffic (also known as painted medians, whichthat are wider than a double yellow line); or (2) The area of a street at an intersections between the streets and a right turn only lane, roughly triangular in shape, and separated from the motor vehicular traffic lanes by curbing, landscaping or other physical obstacles to the area's use by motor vehicles (also known as a right turn island). (c) This Section does not shall only apply to: (1) medians eight (8) feet wide or less, regardless of the volume of traffic around such median; (2) medians which are thirty (30) eighteen (18) or more feet wide or less where the average volume of traffic around such median in either direction is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) vehicles per day as measured by the Traffic Engineer; or (3) medians eighteen (18) feet wide or less where the speed limit around such median in either direction is thirty-five (35) miles per hour or greater, regardless of the volume of traffic around such median. (d) This Section does not apply to persons maintaining or working on the median for either a public entity thatthe government which owns the underlying right-of-way or for a public utility. (e) A map of identified medians posted by the Traffic Engineer on the City’s website shall constitute prima facie evidence that Subsection (c) applies to that median. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. Packet Pg. 148 -3- __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 149 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 085, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO PANHANDLING WHEREAS, in 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 070, 1995, adding Section 17-127 to the City Code to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on certain aggressive panhandling conduct that was then occurring and has continued to occur within the City; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, five individual plaintiffs and Greenpeace, Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) filed in Colorado Federal District Court a class-action lawsuit against the City (the “Lawsuit”); and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs challenged in the Lawsuit the constitutionality of seven specific time, place and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127, and asked the Court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the City’s enforcement of these challenged provisions (the “Challenged Provisions”); and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, City Council repealed the Challenged Provisions; and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs did not, however, challenge the constitutionality of the four other time, place and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127, as currently found in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4); and WHEREAS, the four remaining panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127 cover unlawful behaviors that are already identified as specific crimes in Chapter 17, including disorderly conduct (17-124), harassment (17-126), disturbing the peace (17-121), obstruction of a passageway (17-128) and assault (17-21); and WHEREAS, these overlapping provisions addressing the same criminal behaviors cause confusion among Fort Collins Police Services officers when determining which provision to cite on a criminal citation; and WHEREAS, because of this overlap and confusion, Fort Collins Police Services recommends eliminating the four remaining panhandling restrictions in (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4), and the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve such changes to the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Packet Pg. 150 -2- Section 2. That Section 17-127 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety. Sec. 17-127. - Panhandling. (a) When used in this Section, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection (a): (1) Knowingly shall mean, with respect to the conduct or circumstances described in this Section, that a person is aware that such person's conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. With respect to a result of such conduct, this means that a person is aware that such person's conduct is practically certain to cause the result. (2) Obscene shall mean a blatantly offensive description of an ultimate sexual act or solicitation to commit an ultimate sexual act, whether or not such ultimate sexual act is normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or excretory functions. (3) Obstruct shall mean to render impassible or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. (4) Panhandle shall mean to knowingly approach, accost or stop another person in a public place and solicit that person, whether by spoken words, bodily gestures, written signs or other means, for a gift of money or thing of value. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to panhandle if such panhandling occurs: (1) In a manner that involves the person panhandling knowingly engaging in conduct toward the person solicited that is intimidating, threatening, coercive or obscene and that causes the person solicited to reasonably fear for his or her safety; (2) In a manner that involves the person panhandling knowingly directing fighting words to the person solicited; (3) In a manner that involves the person panhandling knowingly touching or grabbing the person solicited; or (4) On a sidewalk or other passage way in a public place used by pedestrians and is done in a manner that obstructs the passage of the person solicited or that requires the person solicited to take evasive action to avoid physical contact with the person panhandling or with any other person. Packet Pg. 151 -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 152 Agenda Item 14 Item # 14 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2018-064 Approving an Art Project for the Riverside Bridge Project and Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project Pursuant to the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account to commission an artist to create art for the Riverside Bridge Project. The expenditures of $35,000 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, and contingency for Carolyn Braaksma to create the art for the bridge wall along the trail. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 23-303 of the 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 APP Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 047, 1998. In 2012, City Council permanently adopted the APP Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article XII, with certain modifications. Artist Carolyn Braaksma worked with the Project Team to develop the concept for art at the Riverside Bridge site. The artist was selected from the pre-approved list of Design Consultants. The Riverside Bridge site crosses Spring Creek near the Edora Pool Ice Center. The artwork will cover both wall surfaces beneath the bridge, along the Spring Creek trail. The artist design was inspired by the site. The wall surface will be textured and patterned to represent water, hills, the night sky, and the artist will portray fish and water animals that can be found in the nearby creek. However, the graphic design of the animals has been inspired by the sports and games played in the nearby fields. The chub minnows who swim in schools also have a basketball net pattern on their bodies. The striped stickleback fish has a spine that looks like the cleats on football shoes. The stripes and spots in the fish graphics are included to create light and dark variations to provide different depths in the finished concrete surfaces on the wall. The background on the wall surface will have an undulating pattern that mimics the waves of the creek as well as the rolling hills in the surrounding sports fields. The artwork will be pre-cast panels installed on the wall under the bridge. Trail users will pass directly next to the wall on the Spring Creek Trail. This design concept was reviewed and recommended by the Project Team, and recently recommended for Council approval by the APP Board at the Boards April 18, 2018, regular meeting. 14 Packet Pg. 153 Agenda Item 14 Item # 14 Page 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds for this item have been appropriated in the APP Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account. The Art in Public Places program also has available appropriated maintenance funds for the long-term care of the subject artwork and the rest of the Art in Public Places art collection. The Riverside Bridge art budget is $35,000 to be used for design, materials, fabrication, delivery, and contingency for this artwork. $10,142 is from the APP Reserve Account and $24,858 is from the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The design concept and budget for the Art Project was reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the Art in Public Places Board at the April 18, 2018, regular board meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH The selected artist collaborates with the project team to develop concepts for the artwork based on the goals of the project and input from the team. The final design and budget is reviewed and approved by the project team and then the APP Board, who then recommends the project to City Council for approval. The APP Program will promote the project throughout the fabrication, installation, and completion of the artwork. ATTACHMENTS 1. Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (PDF) 2. Art in Public Places Board Minutes, April 18, 2018 (PDF) 14 Packet Pg. 154 RIVERSIDE BRIDGE concept & design by Carolyn Braaksma / 2018 Arst Carolyn Braaksma worked with project team to design artwork for the Riverside Bridge project. The Riverside Bridge crosses Spring Creek near Edora Pool and Ice Center. Her design is for the wall surface beneath the Riverside Bridge along the Spring Creek Trail. The arst design was inspired by the site. The wall surface will be textured and paerned to represent water and the different fish and water animals relevant to the creek near the bridge. The graphic design of the animals has also been inspired by the sports and games played in the nearby fields. The chub minnows who swim in schools have a basketball net paern on their bodies. Sunfish scales look almost like soccer ball paerns. The striped sckleback fish has a spine that looks like the cleats on football shoes. Different sizes and shapes of wildlife, some even oversized, provide variaon in the wall graphics. The stripes and spots included in the animal graphics create light and dark variaons and to provide different depths in the finished concrete surfaces of the walls. The background on the wall surface will have an undulang paern that mimics the waves of the creek as well as the rolling hills in the surrounding sports fields. It will also show the night’s sky at the top. The artwork will be pre-cast panels installed on the wall under the bridge. Trail users will pass directly next to the wall on the Spring Creek Trail. ATTACHMENT 1 14.1 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (6869 : APP Riverside Bridge Project) RIVERSIDE BRIDGE concept & design by Carolyn Braaksma / 2018 Concept Drawing Showing a Secon of Wall Panels 14.1 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (6869 : APP Riverside Bridge Project) Project Area Map: Riverside Avenue Bridge Over Spring Creek Example of a project using concrete form liners by arst Carolyn Braaksma 14.1 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (6869 : APP Riverside Bridge Project) Art in Public Places Board April 18, 2018 ATTACHMENT 2 14.2 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Art in Public Places Board Minutes, April 18, 2018 (6869 : APP Riverside Bridge Project) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-064 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN ART PROJECT FOR THE RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT AND APPROVING EXPENDITURES FROM THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES RESERVE ACCOUNT IN THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND AND THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES STORMWATER UTILITY ACCOUNT TO COMMISSION AN ARTIST TO CREATE THE ART PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 23-303 and 23-304 of the City Code, one percent of the funds appropriated for the Project has been set aside for use in the acquisition, installation and maintenance of works of art in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 047, 1998 (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, Artist Carolyn Braaksma was selected from the pre-approved list of Design Consultants to develop concept art for the Riverside Bridge site that crosses Spring Creek near Edora Pool Ice Center (the “Art Project”); and WHEREAS, the Art Project will cover both wall surfaces beneath the bridge, along the Spring Creek trail and will be pre-fabricated panels installed on the two bridge walls so that pedestrians will be surrounded by the wall design as they walk on the trail, under the bridge; and WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Board (the “Board”) approved the design concept of the Art Project and recommended Council approval at the Board’s April 18, 2018, regular meeting; and WHEREAS, the funds for this Art Project have been appropriated in the APP Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account; and WHEREAS, the budget for this Art Project, including for design, materials, fabrication, delivery, and contingency, is $35,000 with $10,142 from the APP Reserve Account and $24,858 is from the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account; and WHEREAS, Section 23-308 of the City Code requires that the Board’s recommendation concerning the use of funds for the Art Project be presented for Council review and approval as the cost of the art exceeds $30,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Guidelines, a priority in selecting works of art to be acquired with restricted Utilities’ APP Funds is that the art relate to and logically connect with the source of the funds used to acquire the artworks; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that expending funds from the Utilities’ APP Funds for the selected Art Project relates to, logically connects with, and benefits the utility rate payers by enhancing the administration facilities necessary to deliver utility services. Packet Pg. 159 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the use of previously appropriated funds in the amount not to exceed $10,142 from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account and $24,858 from the Art in Public Places Stormwater Utility Account for the Art Project described herein for inclusion in the Riverside Bridge Project, the conceptual design for which was reviewed and approved by the Art in Public Places Board on April 18, 2018. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 160 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2018-065 Discontinuing the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discontinue the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (the “Committee”) established by Resolution 2014-056 in July 2014. The Committee was created by Council to provide oversight and to be available to the City Manager to provide feedback concerning his administration of the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement. Section 3 of the 2014 Resolution provides that it was City Council's "intent that upon completion of the redevelopment of the commercial portion of the Mall Project," the Committee would be discontinued. The commercial development portion of the Mall is now complete. The Committee is, therefore, no longer needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In January 2014, the City, with City Council approval, entered into a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. (the “Developer”) and the Foothills Metropolitan District regarding the Developer’s then proposed redevelopment of the Foothills Mall (the “Mall Project”). In July 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 2014-56 to create the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (the Committee) and to appoint three Councilmembers to serve on the Committee. The Committee was created to provide oversight and to be available to the City Manager to provide feedback concerning his administration of the Agreement in light of the complexity of the Mall Project and the need for flexibility in future decision making concerning the Project. The Committee met as needed between 2014 and 2017 to address five amendments to the Agreement, and provide guidance on the construction of the Foothills Activity Center, and input on the design of an underpass beneath College Avenue south of Foothills Parkway. In addition, the Committee aided in monitoring the leasing activity at the Mall Project. Section 3 of Resolution 2014-056 (Attachment 1) provides that it was City Council’s “intent that upon completion of the redevelopment of the commercial portion of the Mall Project,” the Committee would be discontinued. On August 9, 2016, the City issued the final Building Permit for the construction of the commercial portion of the Mall Project (Permit #B1601150), which was completed on September 7, 2017. Therefore, commercial development at the Mall has been complete for nearly a year. No further commercial development is anticipated at the Mall Project (excepting tenant finish permits whether for unoccupied or currently occupied space). Therefore, discontinuing the Committee is consistent with the intent of the 2014 Resolution. 15 Packet Pg. 161 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No board or commission outreach was conducted in association with this resolution. PUBLIC OUTREACH No public outreach was conducted in association with this resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution to Establish a City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (PDF) 2. Mall Update Report Memo (PDF) 15 Packet Pg. 162 ATTACHMENT 1 15.1 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Resolution to Establish a City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) 15.1 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Resolution to Establish a City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager FROM: Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director RE: FOOTHILLS MALL UPDATE This memorandum responds to a request by the Leadership Planning Team on June 11, 2018 to provide an update on the Foothills Mall redevelopment project (the “Project”) as part of a Resolution to discontinue the Mall Redevelopment Committee (the “Committee”). Site, Building, & Sustainability Updates ▪ The commercial portion of the Project is substantially complete with the south mall expansion now open to the public. ▪ The Dicks Sporting Goods work is complete with an anticipated opening late July/early August. ▪ The Forever 21 space has been turned over to the tenant with an anticipated opening in June. ▪ The pedestrian/bike underpass is open to the public. The City has formed an Art committee to choose artwork to install on the retaining walls and tunnel surfaces – no established timeline for installation. ▪ Work continues to finalize the remaining punch list items on the underpass. ▪ Construction on 400 plus residential units continues. The project, called The Cycle, is actively leasing with 100 units already occupied. All units are anticipated to be complete by October 2018. ▪ The overall waste diversion rate as reported by the Institute for the Built Environment is 72% (through substantial completion). (Redevelopment Agreement requires a minimum overall diversion of 70% rate). ▪ The commercial project costs have exceeded $270 million and nearly all of the $53 million in bond proceeds have been disbursed through the Metro District (details below). ATTACHMENT 2 15.2 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) Financial Update Figure 1 ▪ Base year sales tax established May 2012 – April 2013 of $1.8 million and $1.3 million for Core and Dedicated taxes respectively. ▪ Sales tax collections through April 2018 (which represents sales activity through March 2018), at $2.1 million for Core and $1.5 million for dedicated, represent approximately 119 percent of the base year sales tax collections. ▪ Sales tax collections are up 6.2 percent through April 2018 compared to collections through April 2017. ▪ Sales tax collections have begun to slow as leasing activity has slowed at the mall. The opening of Dicks Sporting Goods, Forever 21, and the rest of the south mall expansion is anticipated to push sales tax collections up again. ▪ As of February 2018, collections for January 2018 sales activity the City has begun to remit sales tax increment to the Metro District per the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. The remittance year follows a May to April calendar. Starting May 1 of each year the amount is reset against the base. Therefore no sales tax increment remittance is occurring and will not likely occur again until January/February 2019. 15.2 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) Table 1 ▪ The project has paid approximately $9,321,068 in use tax and fees to date with $81,955 paid in during 2018 year-to-date. These are May numbers which represent collections for activity through April 2018. Bond Proceeds Utilization ▪ 35 draw requests were approved through the end of May 2018 for a total of $52.7 million. This leaves a balance of $300,000 of available bond proceeds. Draw request 36 was submitted in May to be processed and reviewed in June 2018. Foothills Leasing Update Table 2 Foothills Lease Status Summary, June 2018 ▪ As of June 2018, the project has leased 370,308 square feet with 258,256 of that amount in tenants new to Fort Collins (as per the Redevelopment Agreement definition). FEE TYPE CURRENT QTR YEAR TO DATE PROJECT TO DATE City Use Tax $15,258 $15,258 $2,350,439 County Use Tax 8,956 8,956 395,983 Permit/Development Review Fees 57,741 57,741 4,760,302 CIE & Street Oversizing Fees 0 0 1,755,921 Utility PIFS 0 0 58,424 Total $81,955 $81,955 $9,321,068 Mall Area Redevelopment Use Tax and Fees As of 4/30/18 15.2 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) Figure 2 ▪ Figure 2 shows the historic lease-up pattern for the Foothills redevelopment project. As of the end of the second quarter 2018, the property has leased 72 percent of the total target. Foothills Property Tax Performance At the request of Council, the Economic Health Office (“EHO”) has evaluated the current total assessed valuation adjacent to the mall. The analysis estimates the impact of the Project as a catalyst on adjacent areas compared to a citywide average baseline (the analysis focuses on commercial development). NOTE: The analysis is incomplete due to limitations in historic data availability. EHO continues to work with Larimer County to obtain data for 2012 and 2014. 15.2 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) Table 3 Foothills Property Valuation & Tax Performance Comparison, 2016-2018 The analysis, shown in Table 3 above, was conducted for a primary and secondary area, shown in Figure 3 below. Area 1, the primary analysis area, includes the Project property and immediately adjacent commercial parcels. Area 2, the secondary analysis area, includes commercial property in Midtown along the College Avenue corridor both north and south of the Project. The analysis provides the following observations regarding performance and impact of the investment in the Project: ▪ The primary area has outperformed property valuation and tax generation growing by 73 percent since 2016 compared to a 15 percent citywide baseline (NOTE: the baseline only includes commercial property; the residential baseline has been higher). ▪ The secondary area has grown more rapidly than the baseline, though less significantly than the primary area, at 21 percent compared to 15 percent – showing a catalytic impact of the Project’s investment; ▪ Finally, this analysis – due in part to the lag in property valuations and availability of historic data – is incomplete as it does not show the complete impact of the Project. An analysis that includes 2012, 2014, and 2020 valuations will provide a more complete picture of the impact. EHO continues to work with Larimer County to obtain historic data. 2016 2018 Increase in Assessed Value Primary $ 55,580,498 $ 96,149,176 73% Secondary $ 61,228,471 $ 73,939,478 21% Baseline $ 2,162,720,870 $ 2,497,044,667 15% 15.2 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) Figure 3 Property Valuation Performance Map 15.2 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Mall Update Report Memo (6880 : Discontinuing the Mall Redevelopment Committee) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-065 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DISCONTINUING THE CITY COUNCIL MALL REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, in January 2014, the City, with City Council approval, entered into a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. (the “Developer”) and the Foothills Metropolitan District regarding the Developer’s then proposed redevelopment of the Foothills Mall (the “Mall Project”); and WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 2014-056 (the “2014 Resolution”) to create the City Council Mall Redevelopment Committee (the “Committee”) and to appoint three Councilmembers to serve on the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Committee was created by Council to provide oversight and to be available to the City Manager to provide feedback concerning his administration of the Agreement in light of the complexity of the Mall Project and the need for flexibility in future decision making concerning the Project; and WHEREAS, Section 3 of the 2014 Resolution provides that it was City Council’s “intent that upon completion of the redevelopment of the commercial portion of the Mall Project,” the Committee would be discontinued; and WHEREAS, the commercial portion of the Mall Project has been completed for over a year and, therefore, the Council hereby finds and determines that the Committee is no longer needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Committee is hereby discontinued. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 171 Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator Carrie M. Daggett, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2018-066 Making Appointments to the Cultural Resources Board, Parks and Recreation Board, Landmark Preservation Commission, and The Women's Commission of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appoint Liliane Francuz to fill a vacancy on the Cultural Resources Board due to the resignation of Amy Cerevan, Sam Houghteling to the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Scott Sinn, Anne Nelsen to the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignation of Bud Frick, and Melanie Potyondy to the Women’s Commission due to the resignation of Jennifer Harvey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION During previous interview sessions for the Cultural Resources Board Mayor Wade Troxell and Councilmember Bob Overbeck identified Liliane Francuz as an individual to appoint to any future vacancy. Councilmembers Ken Summers and Kristin Stephen interviewed applicants for the Parks and Recreation Board and recommended appointing Sam Houghteling to any future vacancies. On June 12, 2018 Councilmembers Ross Cunniff and Kristin Stephens conducted interviews for the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Women’s Commission from applications received in the first quarter of 2018. From these interviews have recommended Anne Nelson to the Landmark Preservation Commission and Melanie Potyondy to the Women’s Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applications (PDF) 16 Packet Pg. 172 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Zip: 80524 Board or Commission: Cultural Resources Board Name: Lili Francuz Mailing Address: Residence: Zip: 80524 Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Yes No E-Mail Address: Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Which Council District do you live in? District 1 Current Occupation: studio artist & arts consultant Employer: Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) Most recently retired from the State of Museum as Art Curator. Previously served as Visual Arts Manager for the Wyoming State Arts Council; Executive Director of the City of Norman Firehouse Art Center; Gallery Director for the Alliance for the Varied Arts in Logan, Utah. I have served on numerous art panels regionally and nationally; most recently in May 2015 for the Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) Most recently served on the Art in Public Places Board for the City of Fort Collins (2006-2014). I have also served on the City of Cheyenne Art in Public Bldgs. Board. Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? My professional life was in the arts. Having worked for 2 city governments (Utah & Oklahoma) and one state government (Wyoming) in the arts, the arts are how I can best give back to my Fort Collins community. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: I have applied for the Cultural Resources Board in 2014 and was encouraged to apply by Tedi Cox. List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: I have served on numerous panels reviewing visual arts and cultural community services on 8 State Arts Councils including Colorado Creative Industries in 2014. I have served on a Visual Arts Panel In Washington D.C. and the 2000 Millennial Panel in Baltimore both for the National Endowment for the Arts. In 2014 I served on the Colorado Governor's Art show panel. 16.1 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) One important issue is the distribution of information about when the Fort Fund grants are available to individuals and organizations in the community. 2) Another important issue is to make clear the guidelines which applicants must meet and adhere to in applying for grants. 3) The issue of transparency in all grant reviews is also important. All reviews are based on what the applicant has submitted in the application and how well they convey their proposal. Reviews should not be based on personal preferences of the reviewers. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Lili Francuz Date: Oct-07-2015 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) 16.1 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Zip: 80525 Board or Commission: Parks and Recreation Board Name: Sam Houghteling Mailing Address: Residence: Zip: 80525 Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Yes No E-Mail Address: Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Which Council District do you live in? District 2 Current Occupation: Manager Employer: Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) For 3.5 years, I worked for the City of Collins, primarily with the Economic Health Group and Sustainability Services Area. I studied City Management and Public Policy at the University of Kansas, and prior to that was the Director of a MA based non-profit that administered children's programming for under-served youth. Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) I have served on the Board or Steering Committee's of: SpokesBUZZ Fort Collins, the Northern Colorado Food Cluster, the Downtown Fort Collins Creative District, Compass Community Collaborative, and Fort Collins Startup Week. Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? I strongly believe in the importance of citizen driven local government. Our vibrant Parks and Rec program is a great example of this, and I look forward to supporting Council and Staff as we plan for future needs in an inclusive manner. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: I have training in facilitation and mediation, grant writing, and am in the process of pursuing a volunteer wildfire certificate with the Larimer County Yellow Jackets. 16.1 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) Planning for the Future: As we near community build out, are there area's of our community with less access to our Parks and Rec system than others? How do we effectively maximize limited resources on targeted high impact projects? What are new diversified revenue sources that we might consider to support aging infrastructure? Our quality of life in Fort Collins is a major community differentiator; how do we ensure that that remains a constant? 2) Inclusive Access: This seems like a critical issue for both Parks and Rec, and the City as a whole. Our community must be friendly and open to folks from all walks of life, cultural backgrounds, and for folks with disabilities. This must be a core guiding philosophy, and I'm proud of the work our community has already done in this space. 3) Stewardship: Our Parks and Recreation system differs from our Natural Areas. Yet in an era where we see an increasing importance on resilience, stewardship, and sustainability, this must be major considerations in decisions being made moving forward. Perhaps it calls for adaptive land uses, or inter-governmental collaboration (County, PSD, etc). Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: n/a Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Sam Houghteling Date: Oct-09-2017 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) 16.1 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Zip: 80521 Zip: 80521 Board or Commission: Landmark Preservation Commission Name: Anne Nelsen Mailing Address: Residence: Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Yes No E-Mail Address: Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Which Council District do you live in? District 6 Current Occupation: Architect Employer: Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) HighCraft Builders - September 2013-March 2018Worked on a variety of residential projects within Larimer County. Worked with homeowners on major renovations and additions to come up with solutions that both met their needs and preserved the landmark eligibility of the property. I've also taken projects through the process of removing landmark eligibility when such a consensus Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) Mentor with NCARB (National Council of Architecture Registration Boards) August 2016-PresentParticipated in BookTrust Book Deliveries - February 2016-PresentTable Host for Respite Care Perennial Luncheon - 2017 & 2018Helped with construction of Respite Care's therapeutic garden - September 2014 Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? The LPC works with citizens to protect one of Fort Collins' most prominent cultural resources: its architecture. I'd like to give back to my community and I believe my experience and knowledge set as an architect make me a good fit for the commission Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: I've presented projects to the LPC, attended a Design Review Subcommittee meeting, attended an LPC work session, and spoken to one previous member and one current member of the commission. The whole process is interesting to me. I especially enjoyed the work session and the opportunity to hear new ideas and possible directions regarding processes I've gone through List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: I am a licensed architect in the state of Colorado and have also worked on historic properties in the San Francisco Bay Area. I studied in Copenhagen and worked in Tokyo. I am sensitive to the elements that help form the built fabric of our community. I would be interested in volunteering my time for the Design Review Subcommittee and believe my occupation makes 16.1 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) 1. Public imageIn the work I've done in Fort Collins, it's been rare to find a client who isn't initially apprehensive about any interaction with the LPC. I think there are efforts in place already to begin to try to shift this perception, but I believe it is important to continue to solicit feedback from and dialogue with the community about role of the LPC and what it can (and can't) do. The LPC can't do its best work as a community partner if it isn't trusted. 2) 2. Beyond the tax creditsOne of the biggest selling points for landmark designation has been the availability of financial resources. I've found that for many people, those benefits simply aren't compelling enough to persuade them to designate. I think it would be time well spent by the LPC to promote the other existing advantages to designation that go beyond anything monetary. 3) 3. Understanding the processI think a large part of the public apprehension surrounding the LPC is a lack of understanding of its role and its processes. It's worth seeking public feedback about how to make sure that information is made available to the public as clearly as possible. It could also be useful to find a way to share case studies of projects that have gone through the designation process, made major changes but retained eligibility, or have removed eligibility. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: As a practicing architect in Fort Collins, I am sure there will be projects I would have to recuse myself from on occasion, but there are no serious conflicts of interest. Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Anne Nelsen Date: Apr-09-2018 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) Speaking with a staff member 16.1 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Board or Commission: Women's Commission Name: Melanie Potyondy Mailing Address: Residence: Home Phone: Work Phone: Zip: 80526 Zip: 80526 Cell Phone: Yes No E-Mail Address: Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Which Council District do you live in? District 4 Current Occupation: School Psychologist Employer: Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) -School Psychologist, Poudre School District (2015-Present)-Mental Health Therapist, Saint Vrain Valley School District (2013-2015)-School Psychologist, Saint Vrain Valley School District (2010-2013)-School Psychologist, Thompson School District (2007-2010)-School Psychology Intern, Cherry Creek School District (2006-2007) Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) -City Works 101 (Spring 2018)-Health and Wellness Orchestra (2016-2017) Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? In both my professional and personal life, I have always taken a special interest in women's issues and organizations that empower women in their communities. I would love to be a part of efforts to support women here in Fort Collins. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: -Licensed as a school psychologist through the Colorado Department of Education (CDE)-Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP)-Licensed as a psychologist through the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA)-Completed full-day training re: women in politics through emergeColorado (April 2017) 16.1 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) One issue that I believe would be important for this board to address would be parity in the number of women in positions of leadership within the city (e.g., City Council). This issue could be addressed via organization of educational events regarding leadership opportunities in the community and leadership skills, as well as facilitation of networking events. In addition, the commission could pair with existing local organizations to target and reach out to women seeking leadership opportunities. 2) I also believe that the commission could be involved with addressing the needs of homeless women within the community, especially with regard to safety, professional growth, and affordable housing. I could see the commission pairing with applicable city and county organizations to identify areas of need for females without stable housing, in order to advocate for improvement and/or creation of programs that might better meet the needs of this population. I am especially passionate about advocating for ample resources for youth who are homeless and/or at risk for sex trafficking. 3) Another issue that I believe would fit well with the mission of this commission would be parenting skills and effectiveness. I would love to help the city strengthen resources for teenage, single, and struggling mothers. This could include pairing with community organizations to provide education around effective parenting strategies, agencies who can support with meeting family needs, facilitation of peer support groups, etc. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: None apparent Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Melanie Potyondy Date: May-21-2018 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) City Works 101 16.1 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Applications (6850 : B&C appts) -1- RESOLUTION 2018-050 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPOINTING LILIANE FRANCUZ TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD, SAM HOUGHTELING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, ANNE NELSON TO THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION, AND MELANIE POTYONDY TO THE WOMEN’S COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Cultural Resources Board due to the resignation of Amy Cerevan; WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Scott Sinn; WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignation of Bud Frick; WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Women’s Commission due to the resignation of Jennifer Harvey; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make an appointment to fill such vacancies on the Cultural Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission, and the Women’s Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. The following named persons are hereby appointed to fill current vacancies on the boards and commissions hereinafter indicted, with terms to begin immediately and to expire as set forth after each name: Cultural Resources Board Expiration of Term Lilianne Francuz December 31, 2019 Parks and Recreation Board Expiration of Term Sam Houghteling December 31, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission Expiration of Term Anne Nelsen December 31, 2019 Packet Pg. 181 -2- Women’s Commission Expiration of Term Melanie Potyondy December 31, 2020 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 182 Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Judge Kathleen M. Lane, Chief Judge Ingrid Decker, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2018-067 Reappointing Teresa Ablao as an Assistant Municipal Judge of the Fort Collins Municipal Court and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to reappoint Teresa Ablao as the Assistant Municipal Judge for the Fort Collins Municipal Court. The City Charter provides for the appointment of an Assistant Municipal Judge to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge. Teresa Ablao has served in this capacity since mid-2012. Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Ms. Ablao be reappointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an employment agreement with Teresa Ablao, an attorney who is both reputable and qualified to be the Assistant Municipal Judge for Fort Collins Municipal Court. The current employment agreement with Teresa Ablao relating to her service as the Assistant Municipal Judge for Fort Collins expires on June 30, 2018. This Resolution reappoints Judge Ablao for an additional two-year term, beginning July 1, 2018, and authorizes the execution of a new employment agreement for that service. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed rate of pay of $75 per hour is the same rate Judge Ablao has been earning since starting in this position in mid-2012. The Assistant Municipal Judge serves on an occasional basis and the expense is covered in the current Municipal Court budget. -1- RESOLUTION 2018-067 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REAPPOINTING TERESA ABLAO AS AN ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF THE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL COURT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Article VII of the City Charter provides that the City Council shall appoint the judge or judges of the Municipal Court, WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, the City Council appointed Teresa Ablao to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge for a term ending June 30, 2018, initially as a Temporary Judge with a title change to Assistant Municipal Judge in September 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that Teresa Ablao is a reputable and qualified attorney; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reappoint Teresa Ablao to serve in such capacity on the recommendation of and at the discretion of the Municipal Judge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Teresa Ablao is hereby reappointed Assistant Municipal Judge, for a term beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2020, to serve as an Assistant Municipal Judge for the City as deemed necessary by the Municipal Judge. Section 3. That the compensation to be paid by the City to Ms. Ablao for serving in this capacity shall be at the rate of Seventy-Five Dollars ($75) per hour. Section 4. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into an employment agreement in a form consistent with Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020, between the City and Teresa Ablao to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk EXHIBIT A EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2018, by and between the City of Fort Collins, hereinafter referred to as the “City,” and Teresa Ablao, hereinafter referred to as the “Employee,” pursuant to these terms and conditions: WHEREAS, the City wishes to employ the services of the Employee as Assistant Municipal Judge and the Employee wishes to provide her services to the City in that capacity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2018-067, the City Council has approved of the appointment of Teresa Ablao as Assistant Municipal Judge and has authorized the Mayor to enter into an Employment Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City and the Employee desire to provide for certain procedures, benefits, and requirements regarding the employment of the Employee by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, the City and the Employee do hereby agree to the following: 1. Scope of Services The City agrees to employ the Employee as Assistant Municipal Judge and the Employee agrees to perform all functions and duties as specified in the job description attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, and to perform such other duties as might be assigned. 2. Compensation (a) The Employee shall be compensated at the regular rate of Seventy-Five Dollars ($75.00) per hour, less deductions and withholdings required by law, or authorized by Personnel Policies and Procedures, or authorized by the Employee. The Court Administrator, in coordination with the Employee, shall maintain and submit to the City a time sheet showing all hours worked prior to any payment therefor. All payments shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of said time sheet. This position shall be considered exempt for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state laws; accordingly, the Employee shall not be eligible for overtime pay. 3. Term of Employment (a) The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2018, to and including June 30, 2020. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude renegotiation of this Agreement prior to the expiration of its term. EXHIBIT A Teresa Ablao Employment Agreement July 1, 2018 Page 2 of 5 (b) It is understood and agreed to by the Employee that upon termination of this Agreement, either under this paragraph or under the provisions of Paragraph 4 hereof, the Employee shall not be entitled to any amount of additional compensation, as severance pay or otherwise, other than as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 6 of this Agreement. 4. Early Termination (a) Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause prior to the expiration of the term hereof by providing written notice of termination to the other party at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the date of early termination. The City may, at its discretion, provide the Employee with fifteen (15) calendar days' compensation at her regular rate in lieu of such notice. Such notice shall be deemed effective upon personal delivery or as of the date of deposit into the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: TO THE EMPLOYEE: Teresa Ablao last known address on file with the Human Resources Department TO THE CITY: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Judge Kathleen M. Lane P.0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (b) The City has appropriated funds in the current fiscal year to meet the obligations of this Agreement through the current fiscal year. This Agreement shall terminate at the end of the City’s current fiscal year if the City does not, prior to the end of the current fiscal year, appropriate funds for the subsequent fiscal year with which to meet its obligation under this Agreement in the subsequent fiscal year. The parties acknowledge that the City has made no promise to continue to appropriate funds beyond the current fiscal year. 5. Insurance Coverage; Vacation, Holiday and Sick Leave The Employee shall not be entitled to the medical insurance plans, dental insurance plans, vision plan, life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plans, long term disability plan, an Employee Assistance Program, retirement or deferred compensation plans, or any other group insurance plan or other benefits that may be offered to some other City employees. The Employee shall not be entitled to paid vacation time, paid holiday time, paid sick leave, paid short-term disability leave, or any other sort of paid leave as may be available to some other City employees. EXHIBIT A Teresa Ablao Employment Agreement July 1, 2018 Page 3 of 5 6. Applicability of Personnel Policies (a) The Employee hereby acknowledges receipt of the City’s Personnel Policies and Procedures and agrees that she shall comply with and be bound by all provisions that apply to contractual employees. The Employee acknowledges that the City may in its sole discretion amend, modify, supplement, rescind or otherwise change any and all policies and procedures in the Personnel Policies and Procedures at any time. (b) Although the City’s Personnel Policies and Procedures contains examples of types of disciplinary action including dismissal and examples of misconduct, it is understood and agreed by the Employee that the City is not required to take any disciplinary action whatsoever or follow any sort of disciplinary procedures prior to terminating this Agreement pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 above. In the event the City, in its sole discretion, decides to undertake disciplinary action, the City may discontinue such action at any time and at no time waives its right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 above. (c) In the event that any applicable personnel policies set forth in the City’s Personnel Policies and Procedures are inconsistent or conflict with the terms of this Agreement, then the terms of this Agreement shall be controlling. 7. Proprietary Rights (a) The Employee will disclose to the City promptly all improvements, discoveries, ideas, inventions, and information pertinent to the operation or functions of the City which the Employee may develop either individually or in conjunction with others, or of which existence the Employee may otherwise learn during the period of employment by the City. (b) The Employee agrees that all products which she may develop during the Employee's employment, whether individually or in conjunction with others, and all intermediate and partial versions thereof, as well as all materials, flow charts, notes, outlines and the like created in connection therewith (collectively referred to as “Work Product”), and any formulae, processes, logarithms, ideas and other information not generally known to the public, whether or not protected by copyright, and developed or generated by the Employee in the course of the Employee's employment hereunder, shall be the sole property of the City upon their creation or, in the case of copyrightable works, fixation in a tangible medium of expression. (c) The Employee hereby assigns to the City the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in and to all Work Product, and all copies of such Work Product, without further consideration. The EXHIBIT A Teresa Ablao Employment Agreement July 1, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Employee further acknowledges that the City shall retain ownership of and the right to reproduce, market, license, or otherwise distribute any program or material produced by the Employee under the terms of this Agreement. 8. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the rights granted herein and the obligations assumed herein. Any oral representation or oral modification concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. Although the personnel policies set forth in the City's Personnel Policies and Procedures may be amended, modified, supplemented or rescinded at any time at the sole discretion of the City, the terms of this Agreement can be modified only by a writing signed by the parties hereto. It is further understood and agreed by the Employee that no representation, promise or other agreement not expressly contained herein has been made to induce the execution of this Agreement, and that the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not merely recitals. 9. Enforcement of Agreement; Attorneys' Fees and Costs If any action is brought to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it or she is entitled. 10. Severability Should any provision, part or term of this Agreement be declared or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, then the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining parts, terms and provisions should not be affected thereby and said illegal, invalid or unenforceable part, provision or term shall be deemed not to be part of this Agreement. 11. Binding Effect This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and the heirs, successors and assigns of each respectively. The City and the Employee freely and voluntarily enter into this Agreement and have executed this Agreement having first read the same and intending to be bound. EXHIBIT A Teresa Ablao Employment Agreement July 1, 2018 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation By: Wade O. Troxell, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney EMPLOYEE: Teresa Ablao, Esq. APPROVED: Human Resources Director APPROVED: Judge Kathleen M. Lane EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL JUDGE The Assistant Municipal Judge shall handle arraignment sessions and trial sessions of the Fort Collins Municipal Court on the dates and times agreed upon with the Chief Judge. During arraignment sessions (including video advisements of prisoners held at the Larimer County Jail), the Assistant Municipal Judge shall give the advisements (or ensure that written advisements have been reviewed and signed by defendants), accept pleas of “guilty” and “no contest,” and process paperwork as requested by the Chief Judge or Court Administrator. During trial sessions, the Assistant Municipal Judge shall conduct the trials in accordance with the laws and procedures applicable to the Court. City of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC) Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Ken Summers, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. City Council Work Session June 19, 2018 After the Regular Council Meeting which begins at 6:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER. 1. Oil and Gas Buffers - Land Use Code Changes. (staff: Rebecca Everette, Laurie Kadrich, Cassie Archuleta; 15 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide information to City Council on Land Use Code changes related to oil and gas well buffers, including the current staff recommendation and recommendations from various boards and commissions. The current staff recommendation includes the following Code changes: 1. Increase buffer for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet 2. Add a new 1000-foot buffer requirement for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations 3. Allow a reduced setback (150 feet minimum) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met 4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners via a property covenant. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. (Staff: Cameron Gloss; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations within the Land Use Code applicable to larger parcels being developed in multiple phases. • OTHER BUSINESS. • ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: June 19, 2018 Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Oil and Gas Buffers - Land Use Code Changes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide information to City Council on Land Use Code changes related to oil and gas well buffers, including the current staff recommendation and recommendations from various boards and commissions. The current staff recommendation includes the following Code changes: 1. Increase buffer for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. 2. Add a new 1000-foot buffer requirement for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations. 3. Allow a reduced setback (150 feet minimum) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met. 4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners via a property covenant. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff recommendation? 2. Is any additional information needed prior to Council formal consideration of the proposed Land Use Code changes? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Overview Purpose of Land Use Code Updates Staff initiated a review of the current oil and gas buffers with a goal of ensuring that Land Use Code (LUC) regulations will continue to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents and provide predictability for developers into the future. The intent of the proposed changes is to match or exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requirements, ensure the safest possible condition for current and future residents, incentivize the plugging and abandonment of active wells, and support additional investigation of plugged and abandoned wells. The following goals guided staff’s analysis: 1. Increase the required buffers for new development around existing oil and gas operations to provide greater protection to residents and improve consistency with state regulations; 2. Allow consideration of reduced buffers around plugged and abandoned wells if the surrounding area has been deemed safe for development; 3. Facilitate site investigation and sampling around plugged wells, at a developer’s expense; and 4. Encourage developers to permanently plug and abandon active wells, rather than keeping wells in operation near residential development. 1 Packet Pg. 2 June 19, 2018 Page 2 Summary of Proposed Changes and Board Recommendations The current staff recommendation includes the following Code changes: 1. Increase buffer for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet 2. Add a new 1000-foot buffer requirement for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations 3. Allow a reduced setback (150 feet minimum) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met 4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners via a property covenant The original staff recommendation was modified based on input from the general public, landowners and other stakeholders. Staff held extensive discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board (3 work sessions and 2 hearings), Natural Resources Advisory Board (3 meetings) and Air Quality Advisory Board (4 meetings) over the past six months. All three Boards have provided recommendations on the currently proposed changes. The staff recommendation and three board recommendations are summarized in Table 1 below. The full set of proposed changes is included in Attachment 1. A follow-up meeting was held with members of each Board on Monday, June 4, 2018. The purpose of this meeting was to confirm understanding of the proposed Code changes and clarify the recommendations of each Board. The Boards all support increased buffers around active wells, but they also share concerns about uncertainty and lack of data for older plugged and abandoned wells. There was discussion, but not consensus, about the measurement of buffers (i.e., to a property line rather than the nearest occupied building). All three Boards felt that more stringent monitoring and accountability requirements should be applied if reduced buffers will be considered. Based on public input and board recommendations, staff recommends the following modifications to the proposed Code changes: • Do not allow parks, playgrounds, recreational fields or community gathering spaces to be placed within a buffer, both for residential and high occupancy uses • Require a minimum of five years of annual monitoring of plugged and abandoned wells (if a reduced buffer is granted) • Require a certification that the site is free from contamination and is safe for residential use (if a reduced buffer is granted) • Explicitly require remediation of any environmental contamination, repair of a damaged well, or re-plugging of a well if determined to be necessary (if a reduced buffer is granted) TABLE 1. PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Code Change (Staff Recommendation) Planning and Zoning Board Natural Resource Adv. Board Air Quality Adv. Board 1. Increase buffer around both active and abandoned wells to at least 500 feet for residential development Supported staff recommendation • Supported 500-foot buffer • Supported measuring buffer to nearest property line, rather than nearest occupied building • Supported 500-foot buffer • Supported measuring buffer to nearest property line, rather than nearest June 19, 2018 Page 3 Code Change (Staff Recommendation) Planning and Zoning Board Natural Resource Adv. Board Air Quality Adv. Board 2. Require a buffer of at least 1000 feet around both active and abandoned wells for High Occupancy Building Units* Supported staff recommendation • Supported 1000-foot buffer • Supported measuring buffer to nearest property line, rather than nearest occupied building • Supported excluding playgrounds and parking lots from buffers • Supported 1000-foot buffer • Supported measuring buffer to nearest property line, rather than nearest occupied building • Do not allow variances to setbacks 3. Allow decision maker to consider a reduced buffer around abandoned wells, if additional site testing occurs and the site is deemed safe for residential development (150 feet min buffer) • Did not support staff recommendation • Consider buffer reduction requests on a case-by-case basis only • Determine site sampling and/or monitoring requirements on June 19, 2018 Page 4 Fort Collins Field are very unlikely given the low levels of production that have occurred in this field over the past century. Oil and Gas Buffers The COGCC regulates permitting and setbacks for new wells near existing buildings but does not regulate the reverse situation: permitting and setbacks for new development near existing oil and gas infrastructure. The Land Use Code currently requires a buffer of at least 350 feet between existing oil and gas operations (both active and abandoned) and new residential development. The previously adopted 350-foot buffer was specifically intended to match the COGCC setback requirements for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time of adoption. Since then, the COGCC has updated its setbacks for new oil and gas wells to 500 feet. COGCC further distinguishes between general residential development and land uses deemed to be “high occupancy,” which includes certain schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and daycare centers. The state requires a setback of 1,000 feet between these uses and new wells. Staff recommends updating the City’s buffer requirements to 500 feet for residential development and 1,000 feet for high occupancy uses, consistent with current state-level regulation and City Council’s previous direction. The code changes also include a clause that would automatically increase the required buffer if state requirements also increase in the future. Plugged and Abandoned Wells/Alternative Compliance Plugged and abandoned wells have been permanently removed from production and filled with a combination of concrete plugs, slurries, and other materials. Many of the older wells in Fort Collins were abandoned prior to current regulations and state oversight. As such, there is uncertainty about if, when, and how the wells were plugged and it is possible that some of these wells would not meet the current COGCC standards. It is also possible that the integrity of wells plugged many decades ago has changed as they have aged. While there have been no known issues with any abandoned wells in Fort Collins, there have been documented safety incidents related to old, improperly plugged wells in other communities, primarily in natural gas fields that differ significantly from the Fort Collins Field. It is in the community’s interest to understand the existing conditions of the various abandoned wells throughout the city. The Land Use Code does not distinguish between operational (active) wells and wells that have been plugged and abandoned. However, wells that have been abandoned to current state standards have a much lower potential for environmental contamination, public health impacts, and public safety incidents. Further, well sites in Fort Collins have a comparatively lower risk of methane leaks, as no natural gas is produced from the Fort Collins Field. As such, a reduced setback may be appropriate in situations where the City can verify that wells have been properly plugged and no leaks or contamination have occurred. In addition, a reduced setback for properly abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive for land developers to coordinate the abandonment of active wells on development sites, rather than keeping wells in operation as new development occurs. Allowing a reduced setback would encourage the developer to work with an oil and gas operator to remove the well from operation, therefore significantly reducing public health and safety risks near future residential properties. Staff recommends an alternative compliance option that would allow for a reduced buffer (150-foot minimum) if the City can verify that plugging and abandonment have occurred in accordance with current COGCC standards and no contamination is present on a site. A buffer of 150 feet would provide adequate space for equipment to re- plug or maintain a permanently plugged well in the future, if needed. The following verification and safety requirements would need to be satisfied for a reduced buffer to be approved: 1. Site survey and historical research to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas operations and facilities. 2. Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. 3. Soil sampling, including soil gas testing. 4. Groundwater sampling. 1 Packet Pg. 5 June 19, 2018 Page 5 5. Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations or monitoring. 6. Additional requirements as determined by staff and/or the decision-maker. The required sampling measures would replicate the sampling methods used in Longmont to document the condition of plugged and abandoned wells in that community. Disclosure to Future Property Owners The Land Use Code currently requires notification about oil and gas wells to be placed on the plat for a new subdivision. Based on feedback from boards and the public, staff determined that this method of notification may be easily overlooked by a future homebuyer, so an additional method of notification is appropriate. Staff recommends a requirement that developers include information about any existing oil and gas wells in a covenant for all properties within 1000 feet of any wells. This information would be more readily available to all future property owners. Community Outreach Feedback from stakeholders and the broader community was gathered through the following outreach activities: • Direct mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of existing oil and gas wells, with information on proposed code changes and opportunities for comment (1110 letters mailed) • Online questionnaire to collect feedback on proposed changes, advertised through direct mailing, email lists, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website (228 completed responses) • Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the proposed code changes: <https://youtu.be/QUCAkpeUHgo> • Email notifications to all members of the public and land developers who have expressed a specific interest in these code changes • Four designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns (16 attendees total) • Presentations at Planning & Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Air Quality Advisory Board work sessions • Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns as needed In addition to broad community outreach, staff also consulted with the following targeted groups: • Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) staff • Representative of Prospect Energy (local oil and gas operator) • Representatives for the Country Club Reserve and Montava development projects • Poudre School District (property owner in Mountain Vista area) • City of Longmont staff to discuss their program related to plugged and abandoned wells • Terracon (private consultant) to discuss investigation methods and costs for plugged and abandoned wells A general summary of public input and associated revisions to the original staff recommendation are presented in Table 2. See Attachments 2-4 for the public engagement plan, questionnaire results and a complete record of comments. 1 Packet Pg. 6 June 19, 2018 Page 6 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT AND REVISIONS Public Input Staff Response Majority supported increased buffer around active wells Kept the increased buffer around active wells and added a new buffer for high occupancy building units Majority had concerns about reduced buffers around plugged and abandoned wells, including: • Health impacts and safety risks • Potential for long-term failure of wells • Adequacy of state regulations and inspections Eliminated automatic buffer reduction for plugged and abandoned wells; developed alternative compliance option instead Support for additional research, site investigation, testing and monitoring requirements Added requirements for site investigation and sampling in exchange for buffer reduction (alternative compliance) Support for additional methods of notification to future residents Created an additional method of disclosure through property covenants ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (PDF) 2. Public Engagement Plan (PDF) 3. Online Questionnaire Results (PDF) 4. Public Comments Received To Date (PDF) 5. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (PDF) 6. Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (PDF) 7. Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (PDF) 8. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING 3.8.26 - Residential Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units (A) Applicability. These standards apply only to applications for that include residential development uses and high occupancy building units. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to separate residential land uses and high occupancy building units from existing industrial uses, in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, air pollutants, hazardous materials or site contamination, or danger from fires or explosions. (C) Buffer standards. Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel and may be required along all property lines for buffering purposes and shall meet the standards as provided in this Section. (1) Only those structures used for buffering and/or screening purposes shall be located within a buffer yard. The buffer yard shall not include any paved area, except for pedestrian sidewalks or paths or vehicular access drives which may intersect the buffer yard at a point which is perpendicular to the buffer yard and which shall be the minimum width necessary to provide vehicular or pedestrian access. Fencing and/or walls used for buffer yard purposes shall be solid, with at least seventy-five (75) percent opacity. (2) There are four (4) types of buffer yards which are established according to land use intensity as described in Chart 1 below. Buffer yard distances are established in Chart 2 below and specify deciduous or coniferous plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet along the affected property line, on an average basis. (3) The buffer yard requirements shall not apply to temporary or seasonal uses or to properties which that are separated by a major collector street, arterial street, or highway. (4) Additional Standards Applicable to Buffer Yard D. The following requirements shall also apply to development located in Buffer Yard D: (a) Measured. For purposes of Buffer Yard D standards, the buffer yard shall be measured as the distance from the outer edge of an existing oil and gas operation site location to the nearest wall or corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit occupied building proposed in the residential development. The term existing oil and gas operation site location shall include the impact area of any well that has received all required permits prior to submission of the residential development plan, even if drilling has yet to occur on the site. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1) above. (b) Minimum Buffer Distances. The following minimum buffer distances shall apply: (I) Residential Development. The minimum buffer between a dwelling and any oil and gas location shall be five hundred (500) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. (II) High Occupancy Building Units. The minimum buffer between a high occupancy building unit and any oil and gas location shall be one thousand (1,000) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. (c) Alternative compliance buffer reduction from plugged and abandoned wells. Upon applicant request, the decision maker may approve a reduced buffer distance from a plugged and abandoned well for which reclamation has been completed, all of the aforementioned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations, in lieu of the minimum buffer distances set forth in the immediately preceding Subsection (b), provided ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING that the approved reduced buffer is no less than 150 feet from the permanently abandoned well and meets the requirements specified below. (i) Procedure. To request alternative compliance, an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements established by the Director. At a minimum, the plan: (A) Shall clearly identify and discuss the proposed buffer reduction and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better eliminate or minimize the nuisances and reduce the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. (B) Shall include information regarding environmental testing for the site. Site investigation and sampling shall be conducted to demonstrate that the well has been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been adversely impacted by oil and gas operations or facilities. Director approval of any sampling plan is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan may be required to include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Site survey and historical research to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas operations and facilities. (2) Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. (3) Soil sampling, including soil gas testing. (4) Groundwater sampling. (5) Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations. (ii) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan equally well or better eliminates or minimizes the nuisances and reduces the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. An approved alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be exempt from the requirements of Chart 2 – Buffer Yard Types and below Subsection (e) regarding fencing. (bd) Disclosure. If any residential development or dwelling, or high occupancy building unit is proposed to be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing oil and gas operation location, then the following requirements shall apply: (I) Aat such time as the property to be developed is platted or replatted, the plat shall show the one-thousand-foot radius on the property from such well oil and gas location and shall contain a note informing subsequent property owners that certain lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas operation location. (II) For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such residential development upon which dwellings may be constructed that are within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location. The approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location. (ce) Fencing. If any residential development is proposed to be located within five hundred (500) feet of an existing oil and gas operation location, and if an existing fence does not surround the oil and gas operation location, the developer must erect a fence that restricts public access to the oil and gas location must be erected by the developer along the property boundary between the oil and gas operation location and the development that restricts public access to the oil and gas operation. Chart 1 Land Use Intensity Categories Land Use Intensity Category Buffer Yard Airports/airstrips Very High C Composting facilities High B Dry cleaning plants Very High C Feedlots Very High C Heavy industrial uses Very High C Light industrial uses High B Junkyards High B Outdoor storage facilities High B Recreation vehicle, boat, truck storage Medium A Recycling facilities High B Agricultural research laboratories High B Resource extraction Very High C Oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells Very High D Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) High B Warehouse & distribution facilities High B 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING Workshops and custom small industry Medium A Chart 2 Buffer Yard Types Type - Base Standard (plants per 100 linear feet along affected property line) * Option Width Plant Multiplier ** Option: Add 6' Wall Option: Add 3' Berm or 6' Fence Buffer Yard A: 15 feet 1.00 20 feet .90 3 Shade Trees 25 feet .80 2 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 30 feet .70 .65 .80 3 Evergreen Trees 35 feet .60 15 Shrubs (33% Type 1, 67% Type 2) 40 feet .50 Buffer Yard B: 15 feet 1.25 20 feet 1.00 25 feet .90 4 Shade Trees 30 feet .80 .75 .85 4 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 35 feet .70 3 Evergreen Trees 40 feet .60 25 Shrubs (Type 2) 45 feet .50 Buffer Yard C: 20 feet 1.25 25 feet 1.00 30 feet .90 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING 5 Shade Trees 35 feet .80 .75 .85 6 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 40 feet .70 4 Evergreen Trees 45 feet .60 30 Shrubs (Type 2) 50 feet .50 Buffer Yard D: 350 500 feet 1.25 375 525 feet 1.00 400 550 feet .90 6 Shade Trees 425 575 feet .80 .75 .85 7 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 450 600 feet .70 5 Evergreen Trees 475 625 feet .60 35 Shrubs (Type 2) 500 650 feet .50 * "Base standard" for each type of buffer yard is that width which has a plant multiplier. ** "Plant multipliers" are used to increase or decrease the amount of required plants based on providing a buffer yard of reduced or greater width or by the addition of a wall, berm or fence. *** Shrub types: Type 1: 4' - 8' High Type 2: Over 8' High 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING 5.1.2 – Definitions. Oil and gas facility shall mean equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas. This term shall include equipment or improvements associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned, and plugged and abandoned wells. Oil and gas location shall mean: (1) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility has disturbed the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both; or (2) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both, and such facility or operations have received all required permits prior to submission of a residential development plan for the construction of dwellings or high occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and gas facility or operations, even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas facility or conduct operations has yet to occur on the site. High occupancy building unit shall mean any building type listed in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission definition of a High Occupancy Building Unit. 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Proposed Land Use Code Amendments (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: UPDATES TO OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: INVOLVE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Should the City’s Land Use Code regulations related to reciprocal setbacks (distance between new development and existing oil and gas operations) to reflect current state standards and incentivize the decommissioning of active wells? KEY STAKEHOLDERS: • Residents living in close proximity to existing and past oil and gas operations, primarily in northeast Fort Collins • Landowners with existing and past oil and gas operations on their properties • Oil and gas operator (Prospect Energy) • Environmental protection advocates • Land developers and development review applicants, particularly in northeast Fort Collins • General public TIMELINE: Phase 1: Community Engagement Timeframe: December 2017 to January 2018 Key Messages: • Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulations include setbacks for new oil and gas wells near existing buildings, but they do not regulate new development near existing oil and gas infrastructure (reciprocal setbacks). The Land Use Code currently requires a reciprocal setback of at least 350 feet from all oil and gas wells (both active and plugged/abandoned). • The previously adopted reciprocal setback requirements were specifically intended to match the COGCC setback requirements for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time. Since then, COGCC has updated its setbacks for new oil and gas wells to 500 feet. Updating the City’s reciprocal setback requirements to 500 feet would be consistent with City Council’s previous direction. • The Land Use Code does not distinguish between operational (active) wells and wells that have been permanently plugged and abandoned. However, a reduced buffer for wells that have been plugged and abandoned to current state standards may be appropriate. A reduced setback for these wells would create a stronger incentive for land developers to coordinate the plugging and abandonment of wells on development sites, rather than keeping the wells in operation as new development occurs. • The recently approved Water’s Edge development project received approval for reduced setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells (100 and 150 feet). The Planning and Zoning Board determined that the reduced setbacks would advance the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a 350-foot setback. Tools and Techniques: • Direct mailing to property owners and residents near existing oil and gas wells with information on proposed code changes. ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) • Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the proposed code changes. • Online survey for community members to provide feedback on proposed changes, advertised through direct mailing, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website. • Designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns. • Staff attendance at City Councilmembers’ regular listening sessions, as requested. PHASE 2: Board & Commission Engagement Timeframe: December 2018 Key Messages: See above. Tools and Techniques: • Planning & Zoning Board – Dec 8 • Air Quality Advisory Board – Dec 18 • Natural Resources Advisory Board – Dec 20 • Chamber of Commerce LLAC (by request) • Other community groups (by request) PHASE 3: Public Hearings Timeframe: February to April 2018 Key Messages: See above. Tools and Techniques: • Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – TBD, February/March • Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – TBD, February/March • City Council Hearings (first and second readings) – TBD, March/April 1.2 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates - Survey Results Completion Rate: 76.8% Complete 228 Partial 69 Totals: 297 Response Counts 1 ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations. 14% 14%Disagree Strongly Disagree 10%Disagree 10% Disagree 8%Neutral 8% Neutral 28% 28%Agree Agree 39% 39%Agree Strongly Agree 2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 14.0% 35 Disagree 9.6% 24 Neutral 7.6% 19 Agree 28.0% 70 Strongly Agree 39.2% 98 No Opinion/Not Sure 1.6% 4 Totals: 250 2 Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. 1.3 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations. 18% 18%Disagree Strongly Disagree 17%Disagree 17% Disagree 13% 13%Neutral Neutral 28% 28%Agree Agree 22% 22%Agree Strongly Agree 4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 17.5% 43 Disagree 17.1% 42 Neutral 12.6% 31 Agree 27.6% 68 Strongly Agree 21.5% 53 No Opinion/Not Sure 3.7% 9 Totals: 246 3 Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. 1.3 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers. 9% 9%Disagree Strongly Disagree 10%Disagree 10% Disagree 19%Neutral 19% Neutral 37% 37%Agree Agree 19% 19%Agree Strongly Agree 5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 9.3% 23 Disagree 9.7% 24 Neutral 19.4% 48 Agree 36.8% 91 Strongly Agree 19.4% 48 No Opinion/Not Sure 5.3% 13 Totals: 247 4 Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. 1.3 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells. 13% 13%Disagree Strongly Disagree 20%Disagree 20% Disagree 20% 20%Neutral Neutral 24% 24%Agree Agree 7% 7%Agree Strongly Agree 17%Sure 17% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 12.6% 31 Disagree 20.3% 50 Neutral 19.9% 49 Agree 23.6% 58 Strongly Agree 6.9% 17 No Opinion/Not Sure 16.7% 41 Totals: 246 5 Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. 1.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 5. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities. 15% 15%Disagree Strongly Disagree 15%Disagree 15% Disagree 10% 10%Neutral Neutral 31% 31%Agree Agree 27% 27%Agree Strongly Agree 2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 14.7% 36 Disagree 15.1% 37 Neutral 9.8% 24 Agree 31.0% 76 Strongly Agree 27.3% 67 No Opinion/Not Sure 2.0% 5 Totals: 245 6 Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas wells. 1.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Count Response 2 No 1 1) At 12/11 COGCC meeting, the board talked about oil and gas companies walking away and leaving tax payer with bill to plug/cleanup site. Codes changes should minimize this behavior within city limits. 2) Feet is not the right issue. What really matters is how much poisons leaving pad to adjacent properties. Maybe scrubbers on site A allow a setup back of 10'. Maybe number of wells times poisons means 1000' for a another site. Size/number of tanks tells us max impact of explosions. Code change should try to protect property rights of both sides using data, you can do it so long as it explosion won't take out neighbor and poisons won't make neighbor sick. As soon as the oil and gas says, but we have the right to kill and injury, then we can shut them down as a clear and present danger. 1 500 feet doesn't seem enough. Fort Collins should strongly enforce safety concerns both from the danger of improperly capped wells along with the overall danger of drilling beneath an individual's property. Seismic shifting from drilling is a real danger and Colorado needs to hold drillers accountable for future damage homeowners may suffer such as cracked foundations or walls. 1 500 feet from existing wells for development is definitely not enough distance. It should be a minimum of 2,000 feet. Peoples' health is affected by less than that. Asthma and cancer are two effects of being closer. And, birth defects, such as spina bifida are increased by being as close as 10 miles. We need to keep development away from drilling. Let us never forget Firestone. 1 500 feet is an improvement over 350 feet, but it isn't enough to protect developers and land owners. I wish the City of FC would go farther. 1 500 feet is not a significantly greater distance than 350 ft, when we're talking about the risks associated with O&G development. It needs to stop already. And furthermore, COGCC is an absolute useless commission and a farce, as demonstrated by their apathy and disinterest in promoting public health, safety and environmental and wildlife impacts over the profits of the O&G industry. The agency does not represent the citizens of Colorado, it represents the financial interests of the oil and gas industry. In fact, recently, the COGCC and its lawyer, State Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, argued to the State Supreme Court that the COGCC should not have the authority to put the health and safety of the people of Colorado above the interests of oil and gas developers. What?? 1 500 feet is not enough. We are more than 500 feet from a active well and the chemical odors are horrible. I wonder what they are doing to the environment and health of this neighborhood. 1 500 feet lessens the impacts of O&G minimally, but every increment helps, though this is woefully inadequate. Developers should absolutely locate and have the old and abandoned wells sealed. Since cement is what they use to seal it and it is guaranteed to crack down the line, these plugged wells are but a temporary fix. But standards, in general, are very low and short-sighted for the safety of humans and life in general when it comes to the O&G industry. Though our state's standards may be touted as the best, they are all absurdly inadequate. 1 500 feet setbacks are not enough to protect our community. I recommend that City staff attend COGCC hearings in person or remotely to experience first hand the concerns of local communities and individuals impacted by oil and gas industrial operations in their neighborhoods. These communities' health and safety are negatively impacted by these industrial operations. Fort Collins has the opportunity to show it's commitment to it's residents' health and safety and mandate a setback of at least 2500 ft. from homes and schools. 1 500 ft from homes and schools is a joke and dose nothing to portect those living near wells .we need a buffer of at least 1000ft on ALL wells and much stricter regulations on protecting air and water.This 100ft perposeal on capped wells is a slap in the face of what the residents of ft Collins want and have voiced loudly against ..This perposel dose absolutely nothing to safeguard the heath and safety of residents and once again shows our voices matter less to the city council then oil and gas CEOS who line your pockets .. 1 500 ft is better than 350. The best option would be to opt out of oil and gas extraction and invest, heavily, in renewable energy infrastructure. 1 500 ft is still too close 1 500' is not really a sufficient distance. Significant negative health impacts have been shown to within half a mile of active wells. 6. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change? 7 1.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 500ft still seems arbitrarily small. Reducing the setback for plugged wells also seems like a "setback". 1 A setback of 5000 feet may not be adequate to protect city residents from the harmful effects of VOC's. Noise and odors from such activities are not compatible with residential living in Colorado 1 Alignment with State law is a necessity. Requiring an even greater setback would be wise but impractical. 1 Answering this on the day following the fire near the graveyard in Windsor at the Oil Well site there. It occurs to me that the science isn't fully developed to the point where we know exactly what is safe in terms of distance from neighborhoods. There is also science that indicates there is more air pollution due to the fracking and a increased amount of earthquakes, minor for sure but a concern. 1 Ban all oil and gas. There is no such thing as clean oil and gas or safe Oil and Gas. The excuse that we will lose jobs is a pathetic distraction. Stop letting our politicians get bought out by oil and gas. Our politicians do not represent us they represent oil and gas. When will we learn that we can not eat our money? Will it be after everything is dead in the water is poisoned? Will it be after we cannot breathe because the air is poison? All for what? Jobs? Money? You literally have to be paid by some evil piece of shit to believe that oil and gas is necessary. I believe good people are swept up by fat paychecks and ignoring the facts 1 Ban wells all together. When a well is abondoned it should become a solar panel field instead. Also the question saying it would motivate gas and oil companies to plug abandoned wells, does that mean they are not required to? That seems unsafe and unhealthy for everyone that lives near there. 1 Based on studies in other states, the 500 feet is still too conservative a set back. My responses above were influenced by that. 1 COGCC standards are minimums that are based only on political agreements with the oil & gas industry. These standards are not based on best available science and do not give priority to protecting public health and safety. Based on science, setback distance should be minimum 1500' and to ensure safety 2500'. The City of Fort Collins should give highest priority to protecting public health and safety, and the burden of proving that public health and safety are adequately protected should be on the industry. Any operator who operate in proximity to habitation areas should be required to post a substantial financial bond to ensure that any costs from accidents or other events will be fully compensated. 1 Can we not make the buffer bigger? Im glad it is being increased, but "the University of Maryland's School of Public Health recommended that state [Colorado] set a distance of 2,000 feet from any well. " http://phpa.dhmh.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/Reports/MDMarcellusShalePublicHealthFinalReport08.15.2014.pdf 1 Colorado health studies have shown that there are health impacts within a 1/2 mile of an oil and gas well. The original setback standards had no basis in public health, according an admission of the Director of the COGCC when I worked on this issue in 2012. 500' is better than the puny setback of 100', which is certainly not adequate. This view is the basis of my answers to this survey. 1 Doesn't go far enough and health and safety issues should outweigh property-owner and land-developer "rights" to monetary gains. 1 Even 500 feet is not enough. 1 Even a 500 ft buffer does not protect property values. If a well is sited 500 ft from my back fence, that's essentially in my backyard and as a result, I will likely lose all the equity in my house as well as lose the value it had when I bought it! 1 Fort Collins must address reciprocal "takings" that are granted to frackers. That is to say the loss of homeowner property value that happens when nearby fracking degrades the neighborhood because of noise, stench, danger (that is mitigated slightly in this proposed change), air pollution, etc. This issue is ignored by the state, the Governor, and the City. The frackers are held harmless while they cry instantly about their rights to frack if denied the ability to develop their "rights." The frackers accept no reciprocal responsibility. They must be held fiscally responsible for property value takings. 1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change is good or far enough to protect people's health & safety. 1 Given our image as a champion of green energy and climate friendly policies, Fort Collins should ideally not allow oil and gas development within city limits, but to the extent that we continue to do so, we should make all possible changes to increase the health and safety of those in our community. 1 How long will they have to comply? Who will enforce the new regulations? Count Response 8 1.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 I agree it makes sense to have the same requirements as the State. I am for incentive to cap and stop active wells. Greater distance is better but I am unsure if it is actually still safe enough for the nearby residents or schools. 1 I am in favor of limiting fracking within city limits as much as possible. I am also in favor of having fracking operations as far away as possible from water sources (rivers, reservoirs). 1 I believe some reports suggest 1000 feet or more setbacks. I will send them in if I can find them again. Thanks. 1 I believe the setback should be at least 1,000 feet. 1 I disagreed with question 2 because I feel that this code change would reduce the potential negative impacts of O&G operations, but certainly would not minimize them. 1 I do not feel this set back is far enough considering what happened in Firestone earlier this year. Why put people's lives and property in danger? 1 I do support overall this change to increase setbacks and will be important to development in the rest of the GMA. Would it possible to integrate natural/open space, as the increased setback will likely (I assume) render some areas undevelopable? 1 I don't know why you are asking me this. I don't know anything about this stuff. 1 I don't think the a setback of 500 feet is adequate. 1000 feet would be more appropriate 1 I like the increase to 500 feet, but I see no need to reduce setback of new development from plugged and abandoned wells from 350. 1 I really do not want this code change I'm ok with 350 feet. 1 I still find it hard to believe that oil and gas companies can set up wells/drills what have you in the middle of residential areas. This fact hugely impacted where I bought my house and why I live in Fort Collins as appose to Windsor for example. Having oil and gas operations close to homes negatively impacts the property value of those homes and could potentially negatively impact the health of those residents. 1 I suggest that the setback distance of new homes, subdivisions and schools should be 1,000 feet. As for plugged and abandoned wells, are you sure they won't be brought back into use in the event that oil and gas prices rise? If so, then I'd suggest that they also have a 1,000 foot buffer. A very detailed study was released yesterday with evidence that babies born to women living near fracking sites were found to be below weight. The science is still out on some of the impacts of fracking and we should be as conservative about the public health impacts. Finally, in the future when fossil fuels are entirely phased out, the buffered lands could be developed so the land use code should take that into consideration in the layout of streets and land uses. 1 I support any effort to increase the setback from residences. I live near a well and the constant strong toxic odors emanating from the well are horrible. I worry about the impact on my family's health from inhaling these toxic odors. 1 I support the increase in off set from 350 to 500 feet for existing active oil and gas wells. However I do not believe this is large enough. Any explosion could impact homes within 500 feet. Recent explosions around the country are evidence of this. Also fumes and other toxic compounds can easily travel 500 feet negatively impacting residential health. 1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. 1 I think at the very least, 500 ft setbacks to match State Law is needed 1 I think it should be more than 500 feet. 1 I think the setback for active well should be far greater than 500 feet. Count Response 9 1.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 I think the setback should be even farther away. That is why I disagreed with many of the statements! 1 I think the setback should be much more. We need to protect our city, residents, children, pregnant women, and animals from the toxic materials and fumes! Please protect us!! 1 I want to say strongly disagree but I think my statistics can be viewed incorrectly in bar charts. I strongly disagree with all of these because I think any housing and development should be FAR more than 500 ft in distance. If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in proximity to fracking sites. 1 I want whatever reduces the number of active wells and protects the population. Renewable energy! 1 I wish the set back was even further! 1 I would honestly like it to be even more - even 500 feet from where my kids sleep seems too close. 1 I would like to see a greater set back from new and abandoned wells. At least 1,000 feet, and preferably more. No new wells would be most preferable. 1 I would like to see this increased even more, to at least 1000 feet and perhaps the proposed 2500 foot setback. I know municipalities currently have little power to do so, though. 1 I would offer to make the setback even further. Fort Collins has one of the worst air qualities in the country, most likely due to the booming oil and gas industry. While I understand we all need and use natural gas, we need to focus on clean energy and and avoid archaic forms of fuel altogether in order to protect our health today and in the future. 1 I would prefer a larger setback than 500 feet. 1 I would propose 1000 feet from wells. 1 I would strongly prefer no drilling in City limits, and encourage the Council to put pressure on our elected representatives in Denver to ensure the safety of all coloradoans. Do we need energy sources? Absolutely. Do oil and gas operations pose multiple health, environmental, and safety risks? They do. 1 I'd like the state to require even larger buffers. 1 I'd like to see the setback increased to 2,500 feet. 1 I'm glad the distance is being increased to 500 feet but I would prefer 1000 feet. I have seen too many reports of oil and gas leakages underground. 1 If the intent is to match the State O/G setback standards, would the setback be reduced if the state setbacks are reduced? 1 In general, people should be able to do what they want with their property. Putting a burden on developers to plug nearby gas wells is likely to favor the most wealthy and connected developers over upstarts. Really, drillers should have to escrow the funds to plug their well properly, and some portion of severance tax revenue should go to keeping old wells From blowing up people's houses. 1 Increasing the set-back is an unnecessary and excessive change and doesn't respect the land rights of the oil rights established far before the pressure to build houses. We live across the street from two rigs. We don't like it but the builder knew it when he built and we knew it when we bought. Decreasing the setback for plugged wells is a good idea. It's not being used anymore so it makes sense... if the oil company is willing to cap it knowing it won't ever be able to be used again. 1 It is just and much needed in our city. One only has to look at the map of existing wells, active or not to see that it is a siege encroaching on our beautiful land. The noise, pollution and risk for tax-paying residents needs to be protected. 1 It is not sufficiently protective of public health and safety, or groundwater protection. 1 It is still an inadequate buffer distance for the protection of public health and safety. Whether or not this provides an incentive for developers to plug active wells will depend on who owns the wells and makes the most money, not on public safety. Count Response 10 1.3 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Keep them out of town 1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to mitigate potential health and safety concerns. 1 Looks good! 1 Mirroring state codes and regs will keep FC and Larimer county out of court and save tax monies. 1 My only question is "where is the data that suggests that either 350 feet or 500 feet is sufficient to protect the health and safety of residents?" This seems somewhat arbitrary and capricious, but may serve to satisfy some who are looking for any increase to make them "feel better" about this subject. Lets see the data.... 1 My personal priority is to have not fracking at all. 1 My preference would be for the minimum setback to be more than 500 feet. However, I prefer the 500 feet setback regulation to the 350 feet setback regulation. 1 Needs to protect people and property mor5 1 New development should be MORE than 500 feet, at least 1000, and should certainly be more than that for schools. 1 Not a big enough buffer! Somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 feet would be better. 1 Oil & gas operators do not protect residents' needs; they only protect their own bottom line. These codes are still too easy on them. 1 Oil & gas producers should have to plug old wells if not in use regardless if they are to be reopened. 1 Oil and gas development is dangerous and dirty. It hurts wildlife and our air quality. It adds dirty trucks to our roads. Oil and gas development has no business growing anywhere near our large city. 1 Oil and gas operations should not be allowed within the City limits. Horizontal drilling techniques give access to mineral rights owners while protecting the health and safety of surface rights owners and residents. Increased cost to mineral right owners should not be taken into consideration. 1 Overall, I would like to see oil and gas operations more, and not less regulated, considering the serious risks regarding safety and public health. I don't have much trust in the industry, which is highly profit-driven, spends a lot of money to try and influence policies to work on their behalf, and appears to want to milk every last dime of profits from what can be extracted. I'd hate to see Fort Collins becoming anything like neighboring Weld County, which is oil and gas crazy, and consequently has some of the worst air quality and other related issues in the region, and which unfortunately influences the air quality in the Fort Collins area. 1 Please make it 10,000 feet 1 Safety and a larger buffer should be a priority 1 Safety first!!!! There have been too many accidents. One is two many. We need to protect people and the environment first and foremost! 1 Seems like good idea to conform with the state. 1 Setback distance should be doubled to 1000 ft for new wells; no development should be permitted within 1000 ft of non-productive or abandoned wells. 1 Setbacks from active wells should be even greater. 1 Slant drilling allows oil and gas companies to drill long distances. Increase the setback to 1/2 mile. Count Response 11 1.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Stop coddling the oil and gas industry. They are exporting record amounts of our oil and gas, not paying enough taxes, and not working in the interest of our communities, or our country. We get stuck with the mess, and pay higher prices at the pump. 1 The code changes appear to be an attempt to move oil and gas further away from residential areas, but in my opinion areas zoned residential should not have ANY oil and gas production. 1 The contribution of fracking to overall pollution in this region is obvious, documented and frightening. MUCH more needs to be done. The setbacks are a 2% solution in my opinion. 1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven that over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about the public!! ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY! 1 The further the better. 1 The oil and gas industry has proven time and time again that its only real interest is making profits. Certainly not being environmental stewards for the community and certainly not invested in the health interests of the people living around work areas. The laws in this state allow oil and gas companies to hide the toxic chemicals that they are using from the public because the frack fluid mixtures are "proprietary information". I have zero interest in having an industry regulated by laughable laws anywhere near where I live. Especially considering that most of these companies have enough money to buy the city of Fort Collins outright. 1 The proposed change is not consistent with the State standards related to new residential next to existing wells. The proposed changes do not respect the property owner in any way. 1 The set backs are woefully inadequate to protect public health and safety. 1 The setback should be more like 1000 or 2000 ft, but also instead of punishing real estate developers, new oil and gas wells should be set back 1 mile from existing development! 1 The way to get developers to plug and abandon active wells is to make penalties for problems that arise so severe that developers have to protect themselves financially against that happening or face possible bankruptcy . 1 There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital defects. One study showed increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that even 500 foot setbacks are not sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet to reduce risk to residents in a meaningful way. 1 There should be a public meeting/hearing about these proposed changes and how they will affect the entire community; especially those nearer wells 1 This code change aligns with my own personal values because it is preventing the toxic health detriments that oil is known to cause, but by how much? I am certainly in favor of this but wondering if there's a way to make sure each well is even farther from neighborhoods. Can we isolate wells and make a regulation not to develop anywhere near, to a distance of 2000-5000 ft? Can we regulate how many new wells are built? Is there a safer way to plug them? Studies show that 10% of plugged oil wells leak. I would also like to urge city council to set up a very well publicized meeting to talk about this, as this is a matter of severe health repercussions. 1 This code change does not address the issue of unmarked flowlines, contamination of water sources and increased set-backs for schools. 1 This code change does not specifically address visual impact, noise and/or air quality. Distance may not mitigate all of those, depending on terrain and other characteristics. 1 This code change will likely drive the cost of new homes up. Reducing a developers investment and interest. There needs to be a better way to insulate nearby residents from industrial equipment without hogging up all this land. 1 This code seems fairly clearly targeted at reducing oil and gas production. The science behind it is questionable at best. Even as the city is discussing energy subsidies for low income households, this policy will directly lead to higher energy prices. This is just bad policy, plain and simple. Count Response 12 1.3 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize the results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees with the first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is unnecessary to protect public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm. 1 This is taking away from the rights of the landowners near Oil & Gas wells. State Law requires O & G development to be at least 500 feet from residential units, true. What you're doing here is requiring that residential development be 500 feet from existing O & G units. This is not the same thing. Allow developers to develop at 350 from existing O & G, if they choose to do so. If Buyers won't buy the homes at that distance, the developer will learn quickly. It's called personal choice, as in, the Buyer can choose to live that close, or not. Making this change will do nothing to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells. Making the second change may do so. 1 This is way too close to neighborhoods to give a buffer from potential hazards. Why can't our city be proactive in setting tough standards to avoid cases like the explosion in Frederick that killed 2 unsuspecting people in their home. 1 This new regulation would protect the health and safety everyone involved. People over profit. 1 Though any setback is better than none, this is extremely minimal. I support this and any incremental setback, and encourage keeping up with the state standards ONLY if they put buildings and people farther away from fracking wells, active or inactive. My own personal values would see us shutting down wells within 10 miles of any people. Since this only addresses new wells, I doubt it would impact whether or not developers did anything to address abandoned wells. 1 To change the setback by 150 feet is hardly going to make a difference in the safety of nearby residents. The operators of these wells use undisclosed materials, many of which are likely to be carcinogenic. They don't dispose of fracking wastewater responsibly, either. I am completely against fracking in Larimer county. 1 We don't know that even 500 ft is enough for safety. These wells are leaking methane into our air which we all share....the industry needs to be shut down because we are destroying the ozone layer and the future of the planet's ecosystem, as well as the human species. 1 We need to be dramatically stepping aeat from all fossil fuel develipment. ESPECIALLY FRACKING. 1 We should do anything we can to protect the safety of people living in Ft. Collins. With so much development occurring in our city we need to protect the health and safety of people who live or will live here. The State does little to protect us from oil and gas operations and the people of Ft. Collins have made it clear that we don't want oil and gas operations in backyard so anything the city can do to protect people living in new developments is a great thing. 1 We should not be encouraging plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells. 1 What we know about VOC's from oil and gas operations is that they are very toxic. It would be better to increase setbacks even more than 500' for public health, but an increase is better than nothing. 1 Whatever we can do to maintain public health and safety, we should do. We should be the leader. 1 Where is this idea coming from? Do we want the city to look like and have the same issues as the towns and cities in Weld County? 1 While I agree that increasing the distance from wells for new (I assume housing) will have an effect on protecting those who might move into these new developments, it really does nothing to protect existing property owners whose homes are closer to wells. I also am not confident that plugged and abandoned wells are necessarily safe. There are apparently no standards for those or requirements that any standards be followed. 1 Who will be inspecting plugged and abandoned Wells to ensure they are safe? After the home exploded in Firestone, we all know the existing system for safety inspections isn't working. 1 Why are we not making the rules more stringent and request even more distance between wells and developments in the city limits? My experience is that plugging a well (even according to current regs) doesn't always adequately protect against blowouts over time. 1 Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that includes fossil fuels Count Response 13 1.3 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk. Repeats of the Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells need to be clearly stated and should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in harms way should never be permitted. 1 Would support this part of proposal. 1 safety first 1 the city rules should match the state rules. the rights of the mineral rights owner should also be respected and considered. be clear that the rules would apply to the surface location and not the bottom hole location. subsurface production could be safely performed under developments. 1 this is insufficiently protective of public health and safety and our water resources. Count Response 14 1.3 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 7. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations. 46% 46%Disagree Strongly Disagree 20% 20%Disagree Disagree 9% 9%Neutral Neutral 15%Agree 15% Agree 7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree 3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 45.6% 103 Disagree 19.9% 45 Neutral 9.3% 21 Agree 15.0% 34 Strongly Agree 7.1% 16 No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7 Totals: 226 15 Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. • Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply. 1.3 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 8. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations. 42% 42%Disagree Strongly Disagree 23% 23%Disagree Disagree 8% 8%Neutral Neutral 16%Agree 16% Agree 7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree 4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 42.4% 95 Disagree 23.2% 52 Neutral 7.6% 17 Agree 16.1% 36 Strongly Agree 6.7% 15 No Opinion/Not Sure 4.0% 9 Totals: 224 16 • Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply. 1.3 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 9. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers. 29% 29%Disagree Strongly Disagree 15% 15%Disagree Disagree 20% 20%Neutral Neutral 25% 25%Agree Agree 7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree 5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 28.6% 64 Disagree 14.7% 33 Neutral 19.6% 44 Agree 25.4% 57 Strongly Agree 7.1% 16 No Opinion/Not Sure 4.5% 10 Totals: 224 17 • Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply. 1.3 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 10. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells. 19% 19%Disagree Strongly Disagree 18%Disagree 18% Disagree 17% 17%Neutral Neutral 24% 24%Agree Agree 9% 9%Agree Strongly Agree 12%Sure 12% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 18.7% 42 Disagree 18.2% 41 Neutral 17.3% 39 Agree 24.0% 54 Strongly Agree 9.3% 21 No Opinion/Not Sure 12.4% 28 Totals: 225 18 • Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply. 1.3 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 11. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities. 43% 43%Disagree Strongly Disagree 24% 24%Disagree Disagree 9% 9%Neutral Neutral 12%Agree 12% Agree 9%Agree 9% Strongly Agree 3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure Value Percent Responses Strongly Disagree 43.1% 97 Disagree 23.6% 53 Neutral 8.9% 20 Agree 12.0% 27 Strongly Agree 9.3% 21 No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7 Totals: 225 19 • Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells • Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply. 1.3 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Count Response 1 100 feet don't make a fucking difference when you poison the water table and the air. How is this so complicated? In this bullshit. Don't add another fucking hundred feet. Stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us. You're getting poison to. Your family is getting poisoned. We're all getting poisoned. What is a hundred feet ? what is 500 ft when we are all getting poisoned? 1 100 feet is much too close! 1 100 feet is not enough. This would be terrible for the environment and our health. 1 100 ft is even more ridiculous than 500 ft! 1 100 ft. setbacks are not adequate to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents. I recommend that the City engage with the City of Longmont to learn more about their efforts to study plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells within their city limits. Before Fort Collins can make any determination re setbacks from (P&A) wells, the City must study soil samples, air samples and water samples near P&A wells. The City at this point does not have enough evidence to arbitrarily set a 100 ft. setback from P&A wells. This proposed code update should be tabled until the City has adequately studied the P&A wells sites within City limits. 1 Again, safety first. Keep the current 350 ft set back. 1 All wells, whether abandoned or active, should require the 500 foot minimum setback. This would make landowners think twice before allowing drilling operations on their land, as it would be permanently condemned for future use. 1 Any effort to increase the distance between residences and well is a positive move. I live very close to a well in Hearthfire and the toxic odors that emanate daily are frightening. I am very worried about the health and welfare of my family. 1 Any person who votes in favor of reducing offsets to such a low distance risks personal liability for any injuries or deaths resulting from such negligent disregard for the risks. The lesson from the Firestone explosion (similar but not identical circumstances) should make clear how incredibly irresponsible it would be to decrease any existing setback from new development. 1 Any reduction of setbacks for abandoned wells is a move in the wrong direction. 1 As long as the plugs are inspected by someone other than the developer or oil&gas company! 1 As we've seen in other cases, I'm concerned that even if wells are abandoned, they could still pose a rise to ground water and other environmental issues. I prefer the existing 350 foot setback. 1 Changing the code to 100 feet puts residents at greater risk for their health and safety. "Fraccidents" are happening on a regular basis. the pockets of oil and gas are so deep they routinely avoid putting extra safety precautions in place because the amounts they pay out for accidents are a drop in the bucket for them. We must place more accountability on their shoulders. 1 Considering the explosion in Firestone I think it's a dangerous idea to decrease this distance. It should be kept the same or increased. 1 Ditto my comments in previous section 1 Do we have enough science to know that current plugging is adequate to increase health and safety. I would agree with stronger setbacks. 1 Don't trust O&G operators to adequately plug their facilities after abandonment, nor will a developer do it. Both are greedy pigs motivated by their money, and neither will voluntarily invest in a money-losing venture. 12. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change? 20 1.3 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Even a plugged well can pose a hazard, and is an eyesore. I do not think the setback should be reduced to 100 feet, perhaps a compromise of 200 feet would be reasonable to still provide some incentive, but reduce the visual blight. 1 Even after watching the video, I really don't know what is best regarding safety for nearby residents, i.e., should we be much stricter about proximity to active and closed wells. And is the State strict enough? 1 Fort Collins traditionally DOES NOT LOWER environmental protections! Did Pruit and Trump assume leadership positions in FC? 1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change is nearly far enough to protect people's health & safety. 1 From my research, I can find no state or city data that reveals all abandoned wells or their pipelines. We've had one house blow up in our state. Again, we are taxpayers. Stop siding with big oil and gas with these weak code changes. 1 Given the danger from plugged and abandoned wells as seen in the Firestone explosion, we should not be placing more homes next to abandoned wells by reducing the distance allowed 1 Housing should not be developed within 5000 feet of an abandoned petroleum or gas well. The harmful effects of such wells are not fully understood. 1 How can a mineral right holder re-use a plugged and abandoned well? 1 How can allowing closer proximity to potentially dangerous conditions be safer?? 1 How long will be given to comply with new regulations? Who will enforce the new regulations? 1 How were these abandoned and plugged wells inspected in 2017? 1 I DO NOT support reducing the off set from 350 to 100 feet for plugged or abandoned wells. First this assumes that the company properly plugged the well. Secondly if they have not then the health and safety risks posed to residential homes is increased. In addition this may have negative impacts on property values. Face it no one wants to live next to oil and gas. 1 I am concerned about having plugged and abandoned wells so close to homes. There are so many wells, and so few safety inspectors, so how do we insure that a well that was plugged or abandoned is still safe even years later? 1 I am not clear why a REDUCED setback for abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive to plug them. 1 I believe the setback should remain the same. Even though the wells are inactive and capped, they might still pose a hazard to nearby development if periodic air sampling at the cap is not done to ensure no slow build-up of gas fumes is occurring inside the well. Allowing defunct wells to be much closer increases the potential hazard of the density and speed of gas fumes impacting nearby dwellings. This testing may already be required, but I didn't find any information readily seen in the links provided. I also believe there should be codes requiring all new developments to have these wells capped within the existing plats and setback zones, instead of just incentives. 1 I do not favor relaxing the existing required setback. 1 I do not want this distance to be reduced. 1 I presume that "Development" means buildings occupied by people, e.g., housing. If not, my answers could change. 1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Count Response 21 1.3 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 I think this proposed change will drive up the cost of land for future development, perhaps contrary to the City's desire for more affordable housing. 1 I would prefer the setback to be larger. I don't think 100ft incurs compliance on the part of the industry or safety on the part of the civilians. 1 I'm not sure I trust that the "plugging" will last or be safe long term after recent explosions. 1 I'm not sure the data is completely in on this issue. Why change the distance if we do not 100% know what the results will be for our children. No. 1 If a well is legally plugged, then I'm ok building there. 1 If people want to build closer to a well, they should be allowed to do so. Let the market assess the risks. 1 If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in proximity to fracking sites. 1 In no way should the set back be reduced! 1 Inactive wells should be required to be plugged according to the highest standards, with no counterpart of incentives. 1 It seems unlikely that a developer would incur the cost and liability of plugging a well so that construction of houses could occur nearby. 1 It'll be easier to just leave that probably. What can be done realistically with 250 feet? A bike trail? 1 It's nice to say that the abandoned wells need to meet state standards, but who will ensure this? I don't believe the state is enforcing it's standards effectively. Until I have more confidence that plugged wells are really safe I can't support a reduced setback. 1 Just because you gave one variance does not make it right to give any more. Talk to Jason Elkins at the City of Longmont for their experience and work on P&A wells. 1 KEEP THE SETBACK AT 350'!!! 1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. Force drilled wells to be properly capped. Hold drillers liable for future damage by requiring insurance policies from the drillers that will pay for property and human damage. 1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to mitigate potential health and safety concerns. 1 Leave at 350' for plugged and abandoned well. 1 Makes it worse by bringing homes and wells closer. 1 Mirroring state regs will be a benefit to FC and Larimer county 1 Mistakes can still be made, just like the fatal home explosion in Firestone. 1 No 1 No way would I support this. 1 Not enough information 1 On its face, it looks like this proposed move is based on money, rather than public health. Count Response 22 1.3 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Perhaps things have tightened up since the tragic explosion in Firestone, but I am skeptical. I would want to know more about what the City, and for that matter Larimer County and the State would be doing to be sure abandoned wells and pipelines have been properly capped and sealed before I would favor any reduction in the safety zone around any development, existing or new. 1 Pipeline infrastructure deteriorates with time. This merely pushes the problem into the future. The responsibility for plugging active wells and monitoring the integrity of all pipelines should reside with O&G extraction companies, not housing developers (language in #10 is unclear as to whom is being referred to by use of the word "developers"). 1 Please address frackers fiscal responsibility for their 'takings" from private property owners. 1 Please make it 10,000 feet. 1 Please see my first comment 1 Reducing the setback for a capped well makes sense. Since there is no industrial equipment and the well heads are properly Capped. It makes no sense to enforce a large setback when that land could be useful to nearby residents. 1 Reducing these distances will greatly increase the risk of communities being affected by leaking, plugged oil wells. Stanford's research demonstrated that plugged gas wells had a high likelihood of leaking. This is dangerous for communities living near these wells. 1 Same as before. And, plugged and abandoned wells will fail over time. I know. I'm an environmental scientist. You're just kicking the can down the road so that future generations will have to contend with the destruction we've caused. 1 Same comments as first part. 1 See my above answer. 500 feet is not enough distance from wells for development. It needs to be much further. 2,00 feet would be a minimum. 1 Setback should be at least 1000 ft for abandoned/plugged wells; development of these areas should not be permitted. 1 Since Firestone's "oops" which left 2 people dead, there have been a dozen more, with other lives lost. They didn't make the headlines, however. This is a morally bankrupt play by developers, putting the lives of anyone building within at least 150 feet at risk. When wells are plugged they use concrete, which cracks. Not if, but when, it happens they can cause explosions like we've seen recently. We should not be playing Russian Roulette with our citizens' lives just so developers can build more homes over these time bombs! 1 Stanford has studied plugged wells and shown that about 10% of these leak. Therefore I personally would treat them in a similar fashion as active wells. There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital defects. One study showed increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that even 500 foot setbacks are not sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet 1 Still not convinced this will achieve the goals stated but it's better than nothing. 1 Suggested language for a new rule: "New development must be at least **500 feet** from plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply." 1 The 100 ft. not far enough. Again consider what happened in Firestone. Oil company thought well was abandoned and plugged. A house blew up and lives were lost. 1 The argument in favor seems like a "best guess" which may be wishful thinking. There have been a number of reports of poorly plugged wells. I doubt the state has the staff to confirm that abandoned wells are adequately plugged, nor the ability to check these wells in succeeding years. I also question whether the 100 foot separation is adequate for safety. 1 The current code should be left as is, or made more stringent. Count Response 23 1.3 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven that over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about the public!! ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY! 1 The set backs undermine public health and safety and should be at least 2,000 feet. 1 There have been problems monitoring the quality of other aspects of the safety of inactive wells, therefore I have no confidence in the resources and discipline being available to ensure safety whiLe reducing buffers. 1 There is no meaningful advantage provided by reducing the setback other than to benefit of developers. This perennial power move is tiresome for all of us who are not developers. Surveys and public notices feel like a technicality and minor speed bump to the inevitable. Sigh. 1 This allows developers and O & G operations owners to decide if they want to plug underperforming wells, because it opens up more development potential. It allows the landowner to make decisions that benefit his/her wants and needs. 1 This code change does not address set-backs from flow-lines, whether active or not. All flow-lines need to be mapped / disconnected at the source and removed before allowing less set-back. Soil testing for escaping hydrocarbons should be mandatory for at least 5 years prior to reducing the set-backs. 1 This code change would make it impossible for an unused well to ever be used again if a development is built closer than the 500 feet as currently required. This proposed rule is a underhanded way to limit oil and gas industry and mineral rights owners from exercising their rights. City Council should be ashamed of themselves for proposing this underhanded proposed code change. 1 This is a morally bankrupt proposal. Since Firestone's "oops" that took two lives, there have been a dozen other accidents and others have lost their lives. O&G intends to frack every square mile of our state, according to an aside of an industry rep, and this just gives the developers more to work with while endangering lives needlessly. Recent research in "Science Advances" shows a causal relationship between proximity to all fracking wells, producing, and non-producing, within a 10-mile radius, on newborns' health and mortality with a sampling of over 1,125,000 cases! The closer one lives to the wells, the higher the impacts. I sent this data to our city council last week. We should not be playing Russian roulette with our citizens' lives so we can build more homes. 1 This is crazy! Why do these companies get to ruin our groundwater? 1 This is insane....are you all on the payroll of the oil and gas industry and developers....there is no way that you are considering the health and safety of the citizens of Ft. Collins. 1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize the results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees with the first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is unnecessary to protect public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm. 1 This is not based on public health and safety interests, but rather development interests. 1 This is ridiculous to reduce the setback to 100 feet, given the recent home explosion in Firestone and other similar systemic problems. This needs to be INCREASED NOT DECREASED! 1 This small a setback is pretty much terrible for public health and the preservation of property rights. I consider the heavy hand the COGCC uses against Front Range towns and cities a violation of civil rights. 1 We need to maintain a safe distance from plugged wells. The recent explosions are clear evidence of this. If you let this happen, I think the location of the wells need to be disclosed to any future buyer. You also need to be ready and willing to take responsibility for any damages and loss of life if the wells explode. I think this is incredibly irresponsible and shows your lack of care for the residents of our community! 1 We should not be encouraging the plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells. Count Response 24 1.3 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 What evidence do you base the assumption that the change will encourage OG developers to plug their abandoned wells? The well owners are almost never the same as the surface owners (who are the ones who would benefit by being able to build more housing under this rule change). There is no incentive for operators to do anything. What are the reasons OG operators leave abandoned wells improperly plugged? I'm sure there is some financial or regulatory incentive and if they are not surface owners they have no stake in surface development. 1 What is the evidence that the code change and the reduction in proximity to plugged and abandoned wells will encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells? Is that coming from oil and gas developers themselves? How has this affected new development? 1 What makes you think you can rely on industry to abide by the capping regs? (How silly!) 1 While plugging and abandonment for today's standards may work, locations of historical wells or their P&A process is not always known. In addition, it is the infrastructure that would be an issue and that is the area that needs to be fully evaluated for construction activities. In addition, poorly constructed and then poorly P&A'd wells could lead to conduits for contamination. There are variables here that need further evaluation before reducing the setback. 1 While the idea that plugged wells are better than active ones is sound, plugged wells are known to be environmental hazards, and can be unplugged easily. Given this, maintaining a distance of 350 feet from these wells is more likely to protect people now and into the future. 1 Who will plug these wells for developers? Will Fort Collins suggest a professional company and will the city then have an inspection process? 1 Why do they need an incentive to develop closer if they plug? They should be required to do this. 1 You are putting your voting citizens at risk for health issues and underweight births. 1 You know whether this would encourage developers to plug Wells which are no longer active, one would need to know what the cost was and if it was cost-effective for those Developers and landowners to do so 1 plug the wells Count Response 25 1.3 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Count Response 3 No 2 no 1 A 500 foot setback is not enough to be healthy for those who live in the area. One half mile from a well is the distance considered safe for home owners and for water supplies. Certainly lowering the already low standards we have for setbacks from homes, either those in existence or those that are to be built, is a bad idea. The city has an obligation to protect the homeowner's health and the value of that home. Thank you. 1 "Orphan wells" were a pretty noxious problem offshore and onshore in Louisiana, where I lived for eight years prior to coming to Fort Collins. The city is increasing the safety margin for new development around active wells. I think we take the inactive status a little too much at face value if we reduce the safety zone for development near supposedly inactive wells. 1 Again, the proposed changes and the existing policy is dramatically more harmful to the property owner than the State standards. Property owners should be able to choose to build closer to existing wells. 1 Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement continues to shut down energy production? 1 Although conflicts of public safety with O&G development are minor in Fort Collins now, changes in energy pricing require stringent regulation now to protect citizens in the future 1 An increased bond for oil companies would be nice, though that may be at the state level. If, as they say, there isn't much chance of them exceeding the current bond, then a higher amount shouldn't be much more expensive. Let the insurance companies take the risk, not the public. 1 Anything that can be done to limit O&G development, especially fracking, should be done. 1 As a toxicologist and as someone who's dealt with oil and gas exploration and extraction in NV, I know exactly what is involved and what kind of mess it leaves on the landscape. That should NOT be happening in residential areas at all! 1 As an environmental scientist, I strongly suggest we terminate with oil and agas development in this state as soon as possible. 1 As long as the City of Fort Collins gets their money, they really don't care about this. These changes are meant to benefit the land developers and the City. Rich get richer and City collects permit $ 1 Better maintained wells and citizen education is needed. Setbacks do very little to increase "safety". Large setbacks drive up the cost of homes and development and occupy land that could otherwise be useful to a neighborhood. 1 COGCC has not even come close to doing its job of protecting citizens from oil and gas development. Instead they have basically become a propaganda group promoting fossil fuels. They have put a little lipstick on the pig to try to keep Colorado citizens from banning fracking as many cities including Fort Collins did several years ago before the state sued us. Fort Collins should do everything in its power to fight back and create the strictest limits possible on oil and gas if they truly want to protect their citizens. 1 Can you please notify those impacted of the location of wells that are within 1000 feet of their home? People have the right to know where they are. 1 For me, the most important aspect of the reduced setback for plugged wells is the thorough inspection to ensure that it was plugged properly 1 Fracked oil and gas is a lot cleaner than other fossil fuels and can sustain us for the time being. Let's use it while it's useful and build the solar future at the same time. 13. Do you have any additional comments on the proposed Land Use Code changes or other oil and gas topics? 26 1.3 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Fracking this close to adults & kids is extreme energy development which is isn't safe & shouldn't be allowed. Studies show the closer you live to fracking the more serious health consequences there are. These proposals don't protect the publics health & safety! 1 Given the recent explosions in Weld county, we must be very careful to protect our residents. 1 Health studies and recent explosions and fires have shown that the set backs favor O&G companies not residents. 1 Health, safety and environmental sustainability should have priority over property rights. Colorado's dual estate system is outmoded; mineral extraction and urban development don't belong in the same neighborhood. 1 How did you go from voting to prevent oil and gas development within the city to these proposed changes? 1 How do these impact real estate? Our realtors and buyers made aware of all plugged, active or proposed wells? I might think this to be an important piece of buying decision... like the way radon tests are suggested. Full transparency. 1 I also am not in favor of removing language related to the fracking moratorium. I still think we should limit or prohibit oil and gas development within City limits. 1 I am a resident of south Fort Collins for 24 years. I strongly oppose oil and gas development near residential areas and feel our state has overriden the views of the majority on this issue. 1 I appreciate the opportunity to fill out a survey, it helps me feel like I am in the loop 1 I believe that fractured wells must be handled separately from non-fractured wells as the risk of hydrocarbon escape and contamination of the surrounding area is greater and these sites needs monitoring long after the well-head is capped. 1 I can't see any reason for reducing the setbacks other than a give away to developers. 1 I do not believe it is appropriate to develop new neighborhoods around or near either active or inactive wells. 1 I feel the distanves between existing wells and new wells should be increased. Also, we need more funding to have stricter safety guidelines for Oil amd Gas development. Also, it us the concern of everyone living in the front range that HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STOP ASAP. 1 I hope that the City chooses to protect our lovely city! Protect our health, our aesthetic, our air, our water, and our property values! We need to invest in clean energy!! We want to continue to attract high quality people and businesses to our area! Let's keep foco great! ...and clean! 1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. 1 I think the type of operations in an area should be included in the determination of setbacks. Some low-flow operations may not be as critical as high volume operations. 1 I think there should be widely publicized public hearings on this proposal. Maps should be available showing the locations and well log information of all active and abandoned wells (plugged, not plugged and whether they are just temporarily abandoned or not), monitoring status and findings, well permit applications, and underlying pipelines, and all of this information in relation to current and planned development, hydrogeology, and surface waters. Information on well locations, pipelines and their status, and mineral rights ownership should also be readily available to the public and individuals to consider prior to real estate transactions. Also, locations of abandoned wells are supposed to be marked under CO law, but we have a couple even in my neighborhood that are not marked. One of them, drilled in 1999 and abandoned in 2000, is not even designated as plugged on COGCC publicly available information. A local recent news story cited a homeowner in south Fort Collins who recent Count Response 27 1.3 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 I was on the water board years ago and endorsed the regulations adopted by council which exceeded State standards at that time. I apparently missed an opportunity to input earlier in this new consideration of proposed changes and am doing now 1 I would like better protection for citizens/residents over oil& gas companies. 1 I would like to keep a Timnath like situation, of fracking near homes and schools, from happening in Fort Collins. Any weakening of regulations would cause alarm. 1 I would like to see Fort Collins pursue some stronger regulations or another moratorium (like other cities on the Front Range have done). That map showing the wells does not imply that Fort Collins won't soon see development. Fracked wells often have shorter production lives, fracking allows expansion into areas previously not economic to develop and OG resources are usually found in contiguous areas. We need to get in front of this once more and not cave in to the arguments that there isn't much development here. There wasn't much development anywhere on the Front Range 10 years ago. 1 I would like to think the 100-foot provision would work, but I would like to see reports indicating success from other areas where it has been tried. At present it may be wishful thinking. 1 I would really like to see the City take a VERY strong stance on this issue rather than compromising yet more of the health and safety of City residents and our environment in the interest of energy development. 1 I would suggest that the developers of houses and schools be required to install permanent air quality monitoring equipment within range of active fracking sites and that the data be continuously available to the residents and parents of students. 1 I'd like to see our leaders agressively protecting our environment, especially our water and air. Thanks! 1 I'm just lucky I live in an area of fort Collins without any of these issues but looking out of your back yard to see a lit up tower pumping oil or gas 24/7 seems like a nightmare. I really hope groundwater is not being ruined for people who need it and suddenly earthquakes start happening. 1 I'm not against fracking. I very much want to see these areas of town developed. 1 Intensive development of oil and gas in this area has resulted in the harmful leakage of methane and ethane, contributing to the formation of dangerous ozone levels and global warming. 1 It is a start in the right direction, but it is not significant enough. We can do better. 1 It is not a question of IF the P&A wells will leak; it is a question of when. They all leak sometime down the line, and they need to be monitored continuously. 1 It's a shame that fort collins' moratorium on fracking was repealed. Fracking produces hazardous waste and above all irreversibly continates our ground water. If there is opportunity to reduce fracking.in our area i hope the city governmemt will take action. 1 It's critically important for the City to pursue all means necessary to assess the risks associated with oil and gas development and adjust the code to address them. Risks should include public health, environment, economic, social and ethical dimensions. 1 Its time for the city of Fort Collins to advocate for the plugging and abandoning of all wells within city limits, and for us to move toward a 100% renewable energy goal. 1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. No oil exploration! Close the wells that currently exist. Require drillers to prove they have properly capped wells. Hold drillers accountable for improperly capped wells by requiring up front insurance policies that protect property owners from drilling activity. 1 Keep the oil and gas industry out of our city. Much of our local economy and tourist appeal is based on the cleanliness of our water, o&g will ruin that and bleed the town dry only to scurry away from their mess once the viable product is consumed in the ground. O&g as an industry is equivalent to the people who go through the trouble of taking shopping carts only to realize that once they deposit their purchases in their vehicle that they no longer have interest in returning the cart to an area that isn't threatening to other vehicles in the parking lot. Count Response 28 1.3 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Keep the original 350' setback when building ANYTHING near land previously used for oil & gas purposes!!! Tell the Developers to stop being so damn greedy! 1 Keep them out of town 1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to mitigate potential health and safety concerns. 1 Let's limit oil and gas out of Fort Collins as much as possible. Please do more to stimulate growth of the solar industry. I'd like the Earth to not have melted when my kids are grown. 1 None 1 Not aggressive enough to protect health & safety of citizens. Question: can they drill for oil & gas on city open space? Who owns the mineral rights under city parks and open spaces? 1 Note earlier comments. 1 Of course increasing setbacks from oil and gas industrial operations from 350 to 500 ft. is an improvement but is not enough of a setback to address the health and safety concerns of Fort Collins residents. A seemingly arbitrary setback of 100 ft for plugged ad abandoned wells can not be considered until the safety of P&A wells is studied. I don't see how the 100 ft setback encourages developers to properly plug wells. What evidence does the City have for this theory? Endangering city residents on a theory is reckless. Again, this proposed change should be abandoned until safety studies have been conducted and more than a theory can be relied on for developers plugging wells. 1 Oil and Gas companies are given too much control. Citizens need to have more protection to maintain a quality of life and safe living environment. 1 Oil and Gas operations are industrial operations which pose health and safety hazards to those around them. They have no place in populated or residential areas. Setbacks of 500 feet are not enough, I believe they should be closer to 1000 feet. 1 Oil and gas operators are less trustworthy than developers. Don't let either of them off the hook by reducing any standards; if you do, you are just pandering to the money at the expense of our City's residents. 1 Please do not pander to the anti-oil and gas constituency. 1 Please make ALL setbacks as far as possible from homes. Though the state Supreme Court rode over us, the people of Fort Collins have clearly voted to not have oil and gas production in our city limits. And the home explosions in Firestone and other cities highlight the need for more stringent, not less strict, setbacks from abandoned or plugged oil/gas wells. Thanks for asking for our input! 1 Please make sure you do the research to see what the state requires now for a distance that development must be away from existing O & G operations. The way you're justifying the first suggestion is not valid. 1 Please please protect people and the environment not the oil companies. They are making plenty of money. 1 Please stop worrying so much about the oil and gas community and pay attention to the safety of your citizens. 1 Please think about the environment. I live next to these wells and it is terrible. We had no idea that we would be smelling these chemicals when we moved in here. 1 Set back to 500 ft. is a good idea. 100 ft for capped wells is not sufficient, at least until there is far better verification that energy companies are really following the rules for capping & sealing. (To date, this has not been demonstrated.) 1 Thank you for including the thoughts of residents in your decision. 1 Thanks for paying attention to safety & concerns of our residents. Fort Collins has a history of considering our input and I appreciate it. More evidence should be presented on whether the code changes improve safety. Count Response 29 1.3 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 The City has jurisdiction on surface operations. This should be used fully. I would NOT, as a future property owner, purchase a house where oil or gas operations had previously occurred. The proposed changes, notably the 150 foot setback from previous wells, does not protect residents. Land used for oil and gas operations should not be developed. 1 The City should consider applying a Municipal Carbon Tax, not a severance tax that is the purview of the State, but carbon pollution tax. 1 The citizens of Colorado deserve full disclosure from COCG on the locations of all oil and gas infrastructure. 1 The city council needs to enact much stricter regulations on all future wells and operaters.. And start putting the voices of the residents and citizens they work for over the needs of oil and gas company CEOS ..Our air quality is horrid due to the operations and unchecked negligence of companies like Extraction...The council needs to do much more to protect our air and water and there needs to be much more transparently on campaign donations to members of the city council from oil and gas companies.. 1 The city needs to do everything possible to minimize oil and gas impact on people and property. This industry has too much power 1 The city should fight strongly against all oil and gas drilling in city limits. 1 The proposed change is going in the right direction, but I would like to see even greater setbacks than what COGA is supporting. 1 The second part of these changes seems to go against any voice I've seen from various voted on proposals. They would seem to come from a few deep pockets and not the many voices of the community. 1 This is a violation of the rights of the public and homeowners to satisfy an industry that shouldn't continue to operate. They are jeopardizing the future of the nation's children through their denial and fraud around climate change 1 This issue, like so many, is a complex intersection of understanding the structure and operation of oil and gas, social concerns, and financial benefit (environment, people, profit). Despite the complexity, here's hoping that the profit of a few carries much less weight to the potential well-being of many. 1 This seems to preserve the interests of the oil and gas industry and land developers, but creates grave health concerns for residents and potential residents. 1 Too little, too late! 1 We as a city need to divest from fossil fuels. Banning fracking is not enough if we are benefitting from exploiting our neighboring county. There must be incentives from the city to stop our dependence on oil and gas and turn to TRULY green options IF we want to be a truly green city, which clearly we are not. (And should stop glorifying ourselves as such) 1 We can do even better than state standards. 500 feet is not a great distance. I challenge the city to go above and beyond with more proactive measures separating oil and gas from development. 1 We need even more regulation of current wells. I don't think we should have to live with the toxic odors that we experience daily. 1 We need to encourage the oil & gas industry. 1 We should be investing in renewable sources of energy that have little to no impact on the environment or human health and safety. 1 We were informed we are within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged oil or gas well. We would like to know the exact location of that well. Heard horror stories of supposed plugged wells exploding, etc. How confident is the city that that would not happen in Fort Collins? 1 What happened to the unfortunate homeowners in Firestone should never happen again! Count Response 30 1.3 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 When is it enough? Where are the impact studies by non-biased groups on our natural environment and quality of life? Who is doing that homework? As a Colorado native who's family has resided in this state for 120 years, I can hardly believe the welcome mat we have laid out for gas and oil. Within reason, we can accommodate new industry but we are far beyond that now. It feels Orwellian when I drive around NE Colorado or browse satellite views of our state. 1 Where exactly are new proposed wells planned for? I specifically moved to Fort Collins/Larimer County to avoid living anywhere near a fracking operation for the health and safety of my family. All of this fracking is highly irresponsible, with very little transparency, accountability or public knowledge of what substances they are using. The almighty dollar is given top consideration for short term gain over the long term health and safety of residents and wildlife. I knew Weld county was a joke when it comes to "regulation" of oil and gas operations but I really had hoped for better from Fort Collins and Larimer county officials. 1 Would like the City to continue doing what it can to eliminate fracking in the city and surrounding as much as possible. 1 Yes - I think we need to always speak out against fracking. It is very dangerous. 1 Yes stop poisoning the natural areas. What is this insane war on dandelions and mullein? Land Management doesn't even quantify if what they do is effective. They just get their new ATVs every couple years and their poison from Monsanto and spray it in our natural areas. They're trying to control things that have seeds in the soil for over a hundred fifty years and they're not quantifying if they're even effective. This is a disgusting abuse of money and power and it's poisoning our natural areas, our Rivers, and us. We live in High chaparrel desert and everyone thinks they need green grass Lawns. How insane. how many times are you going to poison your yard, mow it, waste drinking water, and get no food from it? And native plants are noxious weeds? You have to be insane or paid by chemical companies to think that this is a good idea. Larimer County goes 2 hours into the mountains to poison shit the white man brought here with no proof what they are doing is working. And call them natura 1 Yes, recent studies published in Science Advances, shows a causal relationship between fracking, and infant mortality/birth weights. In a study using over 1,125,000 mothers, it was shown that fracking negatively affects newborns, the most vulnerable to the effects of this toxic way to acquire energy. I sent a copy of this study to our council last week. Since so many underground wells have yet to be located, we are seeing what is called "frack hits," wherein different O&G companies accidentally drill into old wells put, presumably by a competitor (if they are even still in business) causing chaos and leeching into the ground and nearby water. The way we plug old wells is temporary at best. We need to be very careful how we approach these issues. This is pretty clearly something to help developers build more homes, which wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the O&G issues in CO. 1 amend code to align with state code and leave the rest alone. 1 http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/34-60-103.html See section 5.5 State law says corporate life is more important that human and wild life. This should be part of legislative agenda to fix. 1 no, seems logical to adopt what the state already has approved 1 please respect the rights of all parties and not just the views of just vocal activists or folks with an agenda Count Response 31 1.3 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 14. What part of the city do you live in (by quadrant)? 32% East of College & North of Drake 32% East of College & North of Drake 23% East of College & South of Drake 23% East of College & South of Drake 24% West of College & North of Drake 24% West of College & North of Drake 17% West of College & South of Drake 17% West of College & South of Drake 4% 4%city Don't live in the city Value Percent Responses East of College & North of Drake 31.5% 70 East of College & South of Drake 23.4% 52 West of College & North of Drake 24.3% 54 West of College & South of Drake 17.1% 38 Don't live in the city 3.6% 8 Totals: 222 32 1.3 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 15. What part of the city do you work in? 11% East of College & North of Drake 11% East of College & North of Drake 13% East of College & South of Drake 13% East of College & South of Drake 25% West of College & North of Drake 25% West of College & North of Drake 8% West of College & South of Drake 8% West of College & South of Drake 13% 13%Collins Work outside Fort Collins 29% Don’t currently work/am retired 29% Don’t currently work/am retired 1% 1%student Am a student Value Percent Responses East of College & North of Drake 11.1% 24 East of College & South of Drake 13.0% 28 West of College & North of Drake 25.0% 54 West of College & South of Drake 8.3% 18 Work outside Fort Collins 13.4% 29 Don’t currently work/am retired 28.7% 62 Am a student 0.5% 1 Totals: 216 33 1.3 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 16. Do you own or rent your residence? 86% 86%Own Own 11% 11%Rent Rent 3% 3%answer Prefer not to answer Value Percent Responses Own 86.0% 185 Rent 10.7% 23 Prefer not to answer 3.3% 7 Totals: 215 34 1.3 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 17. What is your gender? 44% Male 45% 45%Female Female 1% 1%binary Non-binary 1% 1%Other Other 9% 9%answer Prefer not to answer Value Percent Responses Male 44.2% 95 Female 45.1% 97 Non-binary 0.5% 1 Other 0.9% 2 Prefer not to answer 9.3% 20 Totals: 215 35 1.3 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 18. What is your race or ethnicity? Percent American Indian or Alaska Native Asian White Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Another race or ethnicity Prefer not to answer 0 20 40 60 80 Value Percent Responses American Indian or Alaska Native 0.5% 1 Asian 1.9% 4 White 79.5% 167 Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin 2.9% 6 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.5% 1 Another race or ethnicity 1.0% 2 Prefer not to answer 16.7% 35 36 1.3 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 19. What is your annual household income? 5% $24,999 or less 9% $25,000-49,999 13% $50,000-74,999 14% $75,000-99,999 18% $100,000-149,999 8% $150,000-199,999 8% 8%more $200,000 or more 26% 26%answer Prefer not to answer Value Percent Responses $24,999 or less 5.2% 11 $25,000-49,999 8.5% 18 $50,000-74,999 12.8% 27 $75,000-99,999 14.2% 30 $100,000-149,999 18.0% 38 $150,000-199,999 8.1% 17 $200,000 or more 7.6% 16 Prefer not to answer 25.6% 54 Totals: 211 37 1.3 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 20. What is your age? 1% 18-24 15% 25-34 19% 35-44 15% 45-54 22% 55-64 19% 65-74 2% 75+ 8% 8%answer Prefer not to answer Value Percent Responses 18-24 0.9% 2 25-34 14.7% 31 35-44 19.4% 41 45-54 14.7% 31 55-64 21.8% 46 65-74 18.5% 39 75+ 2.4% 5 Prefer not to answer 7.6% 16 Totals: 211 38 1.3 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Online Questionnaire Results (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Oil & Gas Land Use Code Changes – Listening Sessions Background As part of the effort to update sections of the Land Use Code related to the buffers around oil and gas wells, four public listening sessions were held on December 19, January 2, January 9 and January 10. There were 16 attendees in total at the four sessions. The following notes summarize the questions and comments received by staff during those conversations. Summary Listening Session #1 – December 19, 2017 • Attendee #1 o Concerned that the locations and conditions of plugged and abandoned wells are uncertain o Jason Elkins, City of Longmont, recently presented to the League of Women Voters about Longmont’s efforts to inventory and evaluate plugged and abandoned wells in their city, including locating the wells, groundwater monitoring and other site investigations. He has determined that 150 ft is a more appropriate buffer around plugged and abandoned wells than 100 feet, and that all wells will eventually leak over time. o Recommended contacting Mr. Elkins to understand Longmont’s program; use as a model for identifying and monitoring plugged and abandoned wells [Note: staff subsequently followed up with Longmont staff with questions and discussion] o Noted that this topic is of great interest in the local League of Women Voters chapter • Attendee #2 o Health, economic and financial concerns about the proposed changes o We should not be doing any favors for the oil and gas industry, they aren’t doing us any favors, supports any way to restrict oil and gas development o Less than 1% of Colorado jobs are in oil and gas; one of the smallest economic sectors but wields the most power o Colorado has very low severance taxes for oil and gas; is it possible for the City to charge an additional tax for drilling in the city? o Increase setbacks to at least 2500 feet; can’t trust the oil and gas industry to protect the health and wellbeing of residents o Concerns about potential explosions, leaks and spills o Recommend copying Boulder’s new regulations for Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 4 1.4 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 o Concern that drilling might be possible on Fort Collins parks and open spaces, especially Soapstone Natural Area – recommended notifying the public about any possibility for oil and gas development on City lands o Material disposal  Where is frac water disposed? Where is the nearest disposal facility?  Disposal of dirt from well excavation is unregulated and being dumped into landfills, despite containing uranium and other toxic materials o Concerned about impacts of aquifer migration and contamination on future water sources; nobody knows what’s happening underground o Notification for new homeowners near wells and flowlines needs to be improved • Attendee #3 o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near Lindenmeier Lake) • Attendees #4 and #5 o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near Dean Acres) Listening Session #2 – January 2, 2018 • Attendees #1 and #2 o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near Lindenmeier Lake) • Attendee #3 o Representing some friends as well o Supportive of changes and anything to reduce oil and gas activity in Fort Collins o Why not just keep the setbacks for plugged and abandoned wells the same as they are now (350’)? Accomplishes the same goal in a similar way o Moratorium – how can the City recognize all the work that citizens put into that? A lot of people worked hard to make that happen • Attendee #4 o Concerned about leaks and failure of plugged wells over time, possible explosions in the future o Concerned about frac hits – when an operator hits an unknown abandoned well when drilling horizontally for a new well, which compromises the old well and can cause leaks/contamination o Concerned about impacts to air quality, water quality, public health, accidents and deaths from explosions o What impact do water injection wells have on aquifers? o Shared articles with more information (attached) Listening Session #3 – January 9, 2018 • Attendee #1 – City Councilmember Bob Overbeck • Attendee #2 1.4 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 o Don’t need to worry about active wells, they will go away eventually; more concerned about plugged and abandoned wells o Don’t want new wells to be permitted in the City o Discourage landowners to allow new wells due to future potential buffers that would apply o If property values reflected “condemnation” of a 500’ buffer, then a potential buyer would think twice o Concern about contamination, cave-ins and other potential risks with abandoned wells o Future landowners should be aware of risks, need to better notify property owners – similar to floodplain alerts? o Adopt rules in a way that does not encourage future oil and gas development o If we have doubts about a well and whether it meets standards, then a narrower buffer should not be allowed • Attendee #2 o How is science being used to help make these decisions? o Where is more research needed? o Testing and analysis – does the City have the expertise in-house to review that type of information, e.g., and on-staff inspector? o Post all available oil and gas data on the City’s online GIS maps  Highlight wells with more uncertainty about location and condition  Be as transparent as possible o Double check the number of abandoned wells in Fort Collins o When did horizontal drilling and fracking become a viable production method? o There is a CSU faculty member (Jeffrey Collett) researching leaked methane from wells at a distance using a handheld device capable of triangulation  Could be used to pinpoint problem areas  Monitoring technology is rapidly enhancing • Attendee #3 o What about monitoring of wells after a development goes in?  Do methane testing once a year on all plugged wells, including the wells that were recently abandoned in Water’s Edge  Put burden on developer to fund annual monitoring o Long-term studies of plugged and abandoned wells in Pennsylvania show a 5% failure rate, odorless gas migrating upward from plugged wells o Change measurement of buffer to the nearest lot line rather than the nearest building o Where is produced water taken and disposed of? Can it be injected back into wells? o Greeley is experiencing basement flooding issues – is it from water injection wells driving groundwater upward? Listening Session #4 – January 10, 2018 • Attendees #1 and #2 o We all share the same groundwater and public natural resources 1.4 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 o Don’t want any oil and gas development in Colorado o Support the first change (increase buffer around active wells) o Concerns about second change (reduce buffer around abandoned wells) o Concerns about long term durability of concrete in wells, leaks in the long term o Fracking has so many unforeseen issues and environmental and public health concerns o Concerned about the toxicity of the chemicals used in fracking, and potential impacts to water quality o Question the motives and influence of the oil and gas industry o Still interested in another moratorium and outright ban of fracking; would set a precedent for other communities • Attendee #3 o Property values should go up if a well is abandoned rather than active, which should be enough financial incentive for developers o A narrower setback does not take the mineral rights off the table; only allow a narrower setback if the mineral rights have been purchased; that’s the only permanent fix o Health and environment info – we don’t have the full picture and all the information o Do not reduced setbacks 1.4 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:41 AM To: Lucinda Smith; Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette Subject: FW: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations Fyi From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com [mailto:harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Harv Teitelbaum Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:29 AM To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com> Subject: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations Dear City Council Member, As you debate the safe distance for setbacks between developments and fracking operations, this just released, peer-reviewed research from Princeton University may be helpful in your deliberations. Thank you. -Harv Teitelbaum December 13, 2017 Source: Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Summary: Health risks increase for infants born to mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic fracturing site, according to a new study. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/1712131 43703.htm Hydraulic fracturing negatively impacts infant health -- ScienceDaily Health risks increase for infants born to mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic fracturing site, according to a study published Dec. 13 in Science Advances. The research team found that infants born within a half a mile from a fracking site were 25 percent more likely to be born at low birth weights, leaving them at greater risk of infant mortality, ADHD, asthma, lower test scores, lower schooling attainment and lower lifetime earnings. 1.4 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 "Given the growing evidence that pollution affects babies in utero, it should not be surprising that fracking, which is a heavy industrial activity, has negative effects on infants," said co-author Janet M. Currie, the Henry Putnam Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. "As local and state policymakers decide whether to allow hydraulic fracturing in their communities, it is crucial that they carefully examine the costs and benefits, including the potential impacts from pollution," said study co-author Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. "This study provides the strongest large-scale evidence of a link between the pollution that stems from hydraulic fracturing activities and our health, specifically the health of babies." Using records from more than 1.1 million births across Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, the researchers compared infants born to mothers living near a drilling site to those living farther away from a site, before and after fracking began at that site. The most significant impacts were seen among babies born within .6 miles of a site, as those babies were 25 percent more likely to be low birth weight, that is born under 5.5 pounds. Infants born to mothers living between half a mile and 2 miles saw their risk of low birth weight decrease by about a half to a third. Infants born to mothers living beyond 2 miles experienced little to no impact to their health. 1.4 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 "These results suggest that hydraulic fracturing does have an impact on our health, though the good news is that this is only at a highly localized level," said Currie, who directs the Center for Health and Wellbeing at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Out of the nearly 4 million babies born in the United States each year, about 29,000 of them are born within about a half mile of a fracking site." "While we know pollution from hydraulic fracturing impacts our health, we do not yet know where that pollution is coming from -- from the air or water, from chemicals onsite, or an increase in traffic," said co-author Katherine Meckel, assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Until we can determine the source of this pollution and contain it, local lawmakers will be forced to continue to make the difficult decision of whether to allow fracking in order to boost their local economies -- despite the health implications -- or ban it altogether, missing out on the jobs and revenue it would bring." This study follows previous work by Currie, Greenstone and others on the local economic benefits, which found the average household living near a hydraulic fracturing site benefits by as much as $1,900 per year. This was because of a 7 percent increase in average income, driven by rises in wages and royalty payments, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices. However, the authors cautioned that the housing prices could change if further information about the 1.4 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 environmental and health impacts of hydraulic fracturing were revealed. "Housing prices are not fixed; they are based on many factors including how well the job market is and how safe the area is to live in," Currie said. "As these results and others on the health impacts from hydraulic fracturing become mainstreamed into the consciousness of homeowners and home buyers, the local economic benefits could decrease." Materials provided by Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Original written by B. Rose Kelly. Note: Content may be edited for style and length. 1.4 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: DanaDeb <danadeb@nance.cc> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:25 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Gas and Oil Setbacks Hi, Let me see if I got this right. If I own mineral rights on a parcel. The new recommended rules would allow someone to build a structure on their property close enough to my property that when I want to exercise my mineral rights in the future I would not be able to do so due to other setbacks. Despicable and deceitful. No need to contact me any further, I am disgusted with Fort Collins’ management and planning and your progressive, social engineering policies. Dana Nance Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com 1.4 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Gayla Martinez <gmaxwellmartinez@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:43 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Due By: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:00 AM Flag Status: Flagged Hi Rebecca, I hesitated to respond because I'm not sure exactly where the process is at or if decisions have already been made. I did take the time to look at some of the other information presented on the city website including the video for the Technical Air Quality Reports from last November. I would like to know by what criteria were the proposed set-backs established? Research that indicates that the health impacts for VOCs are particularly significant within half a mile of a fracking operation: "The assessment concluded that residents living less than a half mile away (2640 feet) are at greater risk for health effects than those living more than a half mile from wells." (Health Impacts of Fracking). The same report cites a study conducted in Garfield County that showed at 30% increase in congenital birth defects for children born within a 10 miles radius of oil and gas operations. Hours before the December 22nd explosion near Windsor, the NCAR Boulder Reservoir station recorded extremely high levels of carcinogenic VOC's 25 miles away from the source. These emission levels were high enough to have merited an evacuation of the surrounding neighborhoods in Windsor, but this, of course, did not happen. And, as to the safety of placing homes within 100' of "properly" capped and sealed abandoned wells and pipelines. I don't know how we can assume that the same human error that led to the Firestone incident couldn't happen again. As Joel Dyer stated in his May 2017 article published in the Boulder Weekly Turning Point:What to do about theoil and gas industry’s 60,000 miles of pipe bombs under our communities and homes. :“Pipe is pipe. According to the industry’s own literature, a small percentage of wellbores will fail shortly after the well is drilled. Over the next 20 years, 60 percent of all wellbores will fail, and over time all wellbores will eventually fail.” This is just a small sampling of the data that would indicate that the proposed 100' and 500' set‐backs are grossly inadequate for maintaining public health and safety. Thank you for your efforts to solicit citizen input. Sincerely, Gayla Maxwell Martinez On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: 1.4 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Jan M <jannieski84@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:54 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks for contacting me. I would support what you are trying to do, increase set backs from wells. Do we have evidence that plugged wells will not create the same issues. I work in public health and would be interested in any efforts that protect clean air and avoid contaminating our water. People live in Fort Collins for the quality of life that it offers, not the quality of its oil & gas! Thanks. Jan On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Good afternoon, I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey on potential changes to the setbacks between oil and gas facilities and new residential development in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts. Because you requested follow-up from City staff, I am reaching out to see if you would like to chat directly about your questions or comments. We are currently working to revise the code changes based on the feedback we’ve received so far, so I want to be sure we are not missing out on any important questions, ideas or perspectives. I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is convenient for you; my contact information is below. More information on various oil and gas topics can be found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner 1.4 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:58 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks very much for your reply Rebecca. My only issue was with the fact that without the needed information about how a well is plugged, answers to the questionnaire pertaining to plugged wells are moot to some degree. Residents are unaware of the mechanisms for plugging, and as wells vary from "played out" to fairly active, from more water than hydrocarbons, from more gaseous to more liquid, etc., simply referring to a well as "plugged" could be very misleading. I am happy to visit the sites of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and review their recommendations. However, I still fell the public should be made aware about the potential risks involved with a "plugged" well. And those risks clearly will vary from well to well depending on specific production variables of the individual well as well as its age, lateral collection systems etc.. As I said in my comments in the questionnaire, a repeat of the Firestone event should be avoided at all costs. Public safety, NOT developer wishes and tax revenues generated by developing land closer to existing wells, should be the driver in this discussion. Thanks and Merry Christmas! Joe Horan -----Original Message----- From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> To: joho7218 <joho7218@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 20, 2017 3:47 pm Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Good afternoon, I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the following responses in your survey: “Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk. Repeats of the Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells need to be clearly stated and should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in harms way should never be permitted.” More information on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s regulations can be found here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/reg.html#/overview. Specific requirements for plugged and abandoned wells are in section 319 of the COGCC rules, available here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/documents/reg/Rules/LATEST/300Series.pdf. I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to 1.4 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:45 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Oil and gas setbacks Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Rebecca, Sorry, I’ve been out of town for the past 2 weeks. I’m not sure if there is anything further to discuss. Many citizens are concerned about the safety of living near oil and gas wells. Particularly those which are capped are of concern as it’s unclear how much they are monitored and exactly how they are if they are. That said, we actually live very close to an active well and have experienced little to no problems. But I worry that relaxing setbacks may be asking for problems down the road. Joe Horan Sent from AOL Mobile Mail 1.4 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:14 AM To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez Subject: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Rebecca - It looks like I missed the scheduled sessions on this subject and that the survey is no longer open for responses. However, I did want to provide feedback and hope it will be taken into account in the decision- making process. Specifically, related to the abandoned wells, moving from 350 ft. to 100 ft. is literally and figuratively going in the wrong direction. This proposed change makes some assumptions that should not be taken lightly which put in jeopardy the health & safety of Fort Collins residents (current or future). Particularly, the notion that plugging is "permanent" without any opportunity for change in condition or failure over time is troubling. To my knowledge, the methods and materials used for plugging today are what are known and available without significant historical data to show how they withstand time, environmental, or geological factors. The "permanence" is further not enforced or monitored by (a lacking number of State) inspectors over 5, 10, 20, 50 years. The City is known to be data-driven; however, this proposed change is arguably not data-driven. In another subject area, the conclusion would likely be we don't have the data to know if, long-term, this is the right thing to do or not, and such a change would therefore not be made. Without this decision revolving around absolute data, known long-term facts, it is a potential risk to human health, safety and piece of mind for those who knowingly or unknowingly end up 100 ft from an abandoned well. In an extreme case, this change could cause direct injury or loss of human life. It could certainly reduce City residents' property values in the immediate area of an abandoned well that experiences any issue over time. Consider the language used in the following excerpts from an article related to plugged/plugging wells: When companies cease production, they are supposed to plug wells with cement to reduce the risk of leaks, and to restore vegetation and wildlife habitat aboveground. ["reducing the risk" of leaks is different than eliminating leaks or expecting no leaks to occur] Orphaned wells are more likely than properly plugged “abandoned” wells to leak pollutants, including methane gas, which can contaminate groundwater and even trigger explosions. [orphaned wells are "more likely" to leak - i.e. properly plugged wells can leak too] I would like to understand why the City feels as though plugging is in fact "permanent" and what data shows this to be the case, including in an age of natural disasters which are increasing in magnitude and scope (including USGS documented human-caused seismic activity in areas of increased oil & gas activity). More importantly, if there is no risk over time, I'd like to understand why there is a setback at all. Why is it 350 ft. at 1.4 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 the state level and why must it even be 100 ft. if there is no risk? Why not 10 ft.? I'd suggest it is because there is an implied ongoing level of risk but would appreciate the confirmation of such. Regards, Kevin Krause 3100 Rockwood Dr, 813 E. Elizabeth 1.4 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: rmhhome11@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:16 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Good morning Rebecca, after thinking about what the City is trying to do with setbacks, I think it is the right thing to do, i.e. align the City’s regulatory policies with those of the State. I spent 42 years in the electric utility industry, both at the retail (distribution) and wholesale (generation/transmission) levels. Twenty eight of those were as a CEO and I learned regulatory policies are the most beneficial when they are applied and enforced consistently across the board. As a result of my background, I serve as the liaison between our HOA and Prospect Energy here in Hearthfire. As a result of my association with Prospect, I am aware of the events surrounding the Waters Edge well closure events. My position has always been, if our country is to have a growing economy to support and provide for it’s citizens, we need all forms of energy to meet the demands of that economy. Don’t disadvantage one over the other! Having said that, I have determined my views in this instance, while honorable and just, simply do not fit with the City’s view of the world. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, but I see no value in taking of your time. Sincerely, Ron From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:17 PM To: rmhhome11@comcast.net Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Hi Ron, Yes, I am available that week. There are two drop in sessions (1/9, 1‐4pm and 1/10, 3‐6pm) if either of those windows work for you. I am also available on Thursday, 1/11 from 10‐noon or 1‐4pm. Let me know if any of those timeframes will work. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct From: rmhhome11@comcast.net [mailto:rmhhome11@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 7:27 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey 1.4 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 Good morning Rebecca, thank you for responding to my comments. With this being the busy time of the year, I would look forward to meeting with you after the first of the year, to listen and learn. Would you be available the week of the 8th of January? Ron Harper From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 4:00 PM To: rmhhome11@comcast.net Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Good afternoon, I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the following responses in your survey:  Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that includes fossil fuels  Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement continues to shut down energy production? I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to learn more and provide input on the proposed code changes. The upcoming “drop‐in” times allow for individual conversations with City staff. All drop‐in sessions will be held at 215 N. Mason St., Conference Room 2B (second floor):  Tuesday, January 2, 1‐4 pm  Tuesday, January 9, 1‐4 pm  Wednesday, January 10, 3‐6pm More information on various oil and gas topics can be found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know! 1.4 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Vadim <vbmalkov@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 3:29 PM To: Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes Attachments: Capture.jpg Thank you, Cassie, It was very helpful. I have attached the map I was able to create with this tool – mostly for all my neighbors. Guys, check out if there is anything else close to your houses. Best, Vadim From: Cassie Archuleta [mailto:carchuleta@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 2:01 PM To: Vadim; Rebecca Everette Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes Hi Vadim‐ Thanks for your email. According to records from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), there appears to be a plugged and abandoned well in your neighborhood. The records that I see on the COGCC website appear to indicate that the area around the well was reclaimed (the plugging and abandonment process) around 1985. Per the exact location, the COGCC has indicated that the locations they provide for older wells are only estimates based on what could be determined from old records. You can view the approximate location, as estimated by the COGCC, using their maps by following the links below:  http://cogcc.state.co.us/#/home  Click “Maps” in top menu bar  Use the link that says “Click HERE to access interactive map”  One of the selections at the top of the map says “Address Search” The COGCC ID used for the well is API # 05‐069‐06152. It’s possible there is some sort of marker on the ground indicating the location, but the wells are plugged and cut off below the surface. The map does not show any active wells in the area. Also, while the COGCC regulates the location of oil and gas wells, the new proposed code updates are for future development near existing oil and gas wells. I’ve copied Rebecca Everett, who is the lead staff for the proposed code changes. 1.4 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 Let me know if you have any troubles with the map, and I can help navigate. If you have any concerns about the well, the COGCC would probably be the best resource. Easiest way to contact them might be to use the “Complaints” link on their home page. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Regards, Cassie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CASSIE ARCHULETA Environmental Program Manager – Air Quality City of Fort Collins 970-416-2648 office From: Vadim [mailto:vbmalkov@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 25, 2017 12:39 PM To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Galiya Malkov' <gsmalkov@gmail.com>; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com Subject: notice of land use code changes Importance: High Dear Cassie, We received a letter from the City (see the attached), asking for a feedback on suggested land use code changes, because our property is within 1000 ft of a well. I would love to provide a feedback using the web site you suggested and it would be very beneficial for us to know where exactly the well is located in relation to our house (526 Jansen Dr, Ft. Collins). Also, before providing the feedback, we, all the neighbors copied, would like to know the status of the well(s) in question – what type (oil or gas), active or plugged/abandoned. Please reply to this email (you can reply all) at your earliest convenience with answers to the above questions. Best, Vadim Malkov 526 Jansen Dr. Ft.Collins, CO 80525 1.4 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:32 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Rebecca - thank you for letting me, and others, know about the proposed changes to the setbacks for P&A wells. What an improvement from the original proposal, and I am so glad that you have been in touch with Jason Elkins. I think Longmont has used common sense in their approach to P&A wells, along with a basic concern about health and safety effects. I would appreciate knowing when you are making presentations to the various Boards so that I could sit in on one as a member of the public. Keep up the good work. Vicky On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Vicky, Based on what we heard from the online survey and other outreach activities, we are currently revising the proposed code changes to better reflect the priorities and concerns of the Fort Collins community. There was broad support for increasing the setback around active wells to 500 feet, so that proposal has not changed. In regard to plugged and abandoned wells, staff is now proposing a different code change. We heard concerns, including your own, about the uncertainty and potential risk associated with abandoned wells. We are now proposing an increased setback around plugged and abandoned wells that would match the setback for active wells (500 ft), with the option for a reduced setback only if additional testing and monitoring is conducted to eliminate uncertainty and identify any leaks or contamination. The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions with the COGCC, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and Jason Elkins in Longmont, we have determined that this buffer distance would provide adequate space for equipment to re‐plug or maintain a plugged well in the future (if needed) and the installation of long‐term monitoring equipment. This is also consistent with the setbacks required by the City of Longmont. By allowing a reduced setback in some cases, it would create an incentive for developers to work with oil and 1.4 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 gas companies to permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the community. We are also exploring better ways to notify future property owners of their proximity to a plugged and abandoned well. Currently, the City requires disclosure on the subdivision plat to all properties within a 1000‐ft radius, but there may be better methods to ensure residents are properly notified. These proposed changes will be presented to various boards in March and to City Council in April. Please let me know if you have additional questions or if you would like to discuss further. I appreciate your ongoing involvement in these code changes! Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:30 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey Rebecca - I appreciate the email. Can you be specific about what revisions are being considered since I may want to meet with you again if I am still uncomfortable with them? Thanks, Vicky 1.4 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 Cassie From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:28 AM To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com> Subject: Several items Cassie - what an interesting meeting last night, though it was discouraging in terms of several Council members. My partner Bob thought that Ken Summers said there were three injection wells, you thought he meant three producing wells, but he failed to mention the other active wells and the plugged and abandoned. I think it is important to distinguish between injection wells, producing wells, active wells, and whatever other types there are. And then we have the plugged and abandoned - no problem... Let me quote from an email I received about the well in Berthoud that spouted: "Also, REGARDING THE LARIMER ISSUES......... I did ask Ellsworth about the Berhthoud spill on October 29. LOTS OF OILY MESS!!! I suggested that it was a frack hit from Extraction and or Synergy as they are horizontally drilling just east of that OLD well that leaked like a Jed Clampett episode. By the way, he NEVER denied it was a frack hit. As you may recall, Extraction and Synergy showed up to the incident (on a Sunday morning) to help build a BERM around the spill. Really Good Samaritans!! From what I heard it got over the road and was estimated at up to 300 barrel spill. I asked Ellsworth the API # for that well. He said that the well was not in their system. It was one that just was not recorded. REALLY??? How many others are "not recorded". He did say it was from 1930 and just missed getting in their files. I don't really believe that but either way, there is a PROBLEM with COGCC recording and reporting." My point in sharing with you is that the plugged and abandoned wells are potentially quite dangerous, and until Fort Collins gets a handle on their accurate location and does some monitoring, we are all in the dark. 1.4 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 Last, when is staff going to start the public involvement process on potential updates on oil and gas regulations? Specifically, on the reduced setback for P&A wells. It seems to me that if anything were to change, the setback should be increased, not reduced. Hope you have a good Thanksgiving. I am in no rush for a response to this email. 1.4 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: jim@tbgroup.us Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:24 AM To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Cody Snowdon; Dan Mogen Subject: Re: Country Club Reserve Wetland Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Rebecca, It appears that the well may indeed be on our site. Ouch! We are working to confirm this with the State. In regard to the upcoming potential policy change related to oil and gas facilities, here would be our perspective. The existing policy/code treats each type of well in the same way. In our opinion and experience a plugged and abandoned well, compared to a water injection well, compared to a producing well are very different and should be treated differently. In our case we bought this property prior to the new City oil and gas setbacks. These setbacks greatly affect our ability to plan and develop our property. It is my understanding that the policy was written to impact the oil and gas developer and not to unfairly burden the property owner. Especially if the mineral estate was severed from the property ownership. However that is exactly what is happening in our case. We do not own the minerals and we do not get any revenue from the wells. The City requirements are not a burden on the mineral estate in any way and are only a burden on us. I remember a comment from a City staff member in the past, that the value of the land when we bought was reduced because of the existing wells and the associated City buffers, so we have not been harmed by the City setback and buffer requirements. That is not true in our case. When we bought the property the City followed the State setbacks. The new City setback requirements and buffer requirements create a huge burden on our property. We are getting no benefit from the wells. The owner of the wells does not have to participate in the cost of the buffering. The burden falls entirely on us as the property owner. We would suggest to the City that the buffer to plugged and abandoned wells would follow State required setbacks. I have attached the standard that we received from the State. Especially in our case, where we would only need to be this close on about half of the well. The other half would be open and accessible for any future testing/remediation work. In our circumstance, with Urban Estate zoning with the cluster option, if this buffer to plugged and abandoned wells could be reduced it would create at least some semblance of fairness to us as the property owner. As always, I appreciate your assistance and willingness to discuss our property. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to let us know. Thanks, Jim Birdsall 1.4 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 1 of 1 voice: 970.223.7577 landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com January 5, 2018 Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations Dear Rebecca, Thank you for inviting the public to share their thoughts on the potential Land Use Code updates related to new residential and commercial development near oil and gas operations. On behalf of HF2M and the Montava Development team, we would like to offer the following comments for your consideration. We have been working closely with city staff and other stakeholders over the past several months to create a master plan for the nearly 850-acre development parcel west of the Anheuser-Busch brewery. The master plan envisions a true traditional neighborhood development with an integrated mix of uses including housing, employment, schools, parks, natural areas and agriculture. While the master plan is an outstanding opportunity to fulfill the visions and goals of the Mountain Vista Subarea plan, the land carries many constraints on development which will make it difficult to achieve every goal fully. We have a creative and visionary developer and design team to deliver a balanced and successful outcome for the community. As we continue through the master planning process, we are encouraged by the City’s consideration of updates to the Land Use Code to align with the state standards. We support both updates being considered: 1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and 2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current state standards. We hope that city staff will support and recommend these changes for City Council approval. Sincerely, Angela K. Milewski BHA Design, Inc. 1.4 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com on behalf of Harv Teitelbaum <harv.teitelbaum@rmc.sierraclub.org> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:28 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Good afternoon Rebecca, Thank you for including me in this morning's email on the above topic. Yes, in my position as state lead for Sierra Club Colorado's Beyond Oil & Gas Campaign, I have some additional input which I would request be shared with City Council. There have been many peer-reviewed studies finding statistically relevant health effects at distances up to 10 miles or more from fracking operations. Examples would be childhood leukemia at up to 10 miles (McKenzie et al, CU), and asthma at up to 12 miles from fracking operations (Rasmussen et al, JAMA). However, the bulk of independent, peer-reviewed research seems to be coalescing around the distance of most significant health impact being approximately 1/2 mile, or 2500 feet. The industry will no doubt discount all non-supportive studies. They may also point to the now discredited CDPHE small-scale meta survey of a few dozen research studies, in which the agency head largely dismissed research showing health harm. However, the best meta study done to date was conducted by Hays and Shonkoff, and published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS) in 2016. It concluded the following: "84% of public health studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health outcomes; 69% of water quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or atmospheric concentrations. This paper demonstrates that the weight of the findings in the scientific literature indicates hazards and elevated risks to human health as well as possible adverse health outcomes associated with UNGD." (unconventional natural gas drilling, i.e. fracking operations) There is also the not insignificant risk of explosion, as we've seen from Firestone and Windsor. Various studies have been and are being conducted as to the actual blast radius potential vis a vs the predicted blast radius. While there are no conclusive studies, much of the data I've seen suggest that actual blast radii are approximately twice the predicted distances. There are many variables, of course, such as chemical mix, volumes and pressures, but a good starting initial real-world expected blast radius would be approximately 1,000 feet, with an evacuation zone many times larger. These are just some of the risks and hazards I hope you will consider as you face the expected pressure and threats from the industry to compromise health and safety. The best supported setback distance, supported by the best available peer-reviewed research, would start at 2500'. Thank you for your time and consideration. Harv Teitelbaum Lead, Beyond Oil and Gas Campaign Sierra Club, Colorado Chapter 303-877-1870 1.4 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:31 AM To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez; Adrian Krause Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR# 42517) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Rebecca - we wanted to make sure that staff and council members had seen this as next steps are taken in Fort Collins: Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds. It is understood that the concept around the changes being put forth is to ensure wells are plugged to standards and monitored adequately but the concern remains: what if that doesn't happen as intended for one reason or another and how are residents impacted? Thanks again, Kevin & Adrian On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Rebecca! On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Kevin, Yes, I will add you to the list. Here is our upcoming schedule for boards and City Council (this will be added to the website and an email will be sent this week).  March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)  March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)  March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)  April 3 – City Council Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) Thanks, Rebecca 1.4 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct From: Kevin Krause [mailto:kevkrause@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 6:55 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR#42517) Thank you, Rebecca. Appreciate the reply and details. We'd definitely like to stay in the loop on any updates and particularly the details of what it will take for certain wells to achieve the proposed 150 ft buffer as that is the critical one. Is there a mailing list we can be a part of? Regards, Kevin On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Evangeline Ramirez <eramirez@fcgov.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Krause, Thank you for your recent inquiry in regards to the survey input for proposed oil and gas related land use changes. Please see the following response provided by Senior Environmental Planner, Rebecca Everette on behalf of Councilmember Overbeck and City Manager Atteberry. Kind Regards, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gigi Ramirez | Administrative Support II 1.4 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 City of Fort Collins 970-221-6505 office eramirez@fcgov.com Mr. Krause, Thank you for your email, as well as your comments at the December Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting. Although the survey has closed, it is certainly not too late for input, so I appreciate your questions and comments. Based on what we heard from the online survey and other outreach activities, we are currently revising the proposed code changes to better reflect the priorities and concerns of the Fort Collins community. There was broad support for increasing the setback around active wells to 500 feet, so that proposal has not changed. In regard to plugged and abandoned wells, however, staff is now proposing a different code change. We heard concerns, including your own, about the uncertainty and potential risk associated with abandoned wells. We are now proposing an increased setback around plugged and abandoned wells that would match the setback for active wells (500 ft), with the option for a reduced setback only if additional testing and monitoring is conducted to eliminate uncertainty and identify any leaks or contamination. We agree that regulatory decisions should be based on good data and should err on the side of protecting public health and safety. The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and staff in other communities, we have determined that this buffer distance would provide adequate space for equipment to re-plug or maintain a plugged well in the future (if needed) and the installation of long-term monitoring equipment. This is also consistent with the setbacks required by the City of Longmont. By allowing a reduced setback in some cases, it would create an incentive for developers to work with oil and gas companies to permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the community. 1.4 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 We are also exploring better ways to notify future property owners of their proximity to a plugged and abandoned well. Currently, the City requires disclosure on the subdivision plat to all properties within a 1000-ft radius, but there may be better methods to ensure residents are properly notified. These proposed changes will be presented to various boards in March and to City Council in April. Please let me know if you have additional questions or if you would like to discuss your comments further. Thank you, Rebecca Everette Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct Original Request From: Bob Overbeck Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:52 AM To: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Ray Martinez <raymartinez@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; SAR Admin Team <SAR-Admin-Team@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, concerns and questions on LUC changes related to abandoned / plugged wells. Let me ask staff to follow up with your inquiry. Darin, Please respond to Kevin's concerns and questions. Regards, Bob Sent from my iPhone 1.4 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 5 ---------- Bob Overbeck City Councilmember District 1 City of Fort Collins (970) 817-1411 boverbeck@fcgov.com --- With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA. On Feb 13, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca - It looks like I missed the scheduled sessions on this subject and that the survey is no longer open for responses. However, I did want to provide feedback and hope it will be taken into account in the decision- making process. Specifically, related to the abandoned wells, moving from 350 ft. to 100 ft. is literally and figuratively going in the wrong direction. This proposed change makes some assumptions that should not be taken lightly which put in jeopardy the health & safety of Fort Collins residents (current or future). Particularly, the notion that plugging is "permanent" without any opportunity for change in condition or failure over time is troubling. To my knowledge, the methods and materials used for plugging today are what are known and available without significant historical data to show how they withstand time, environmental, or geological factors. The "permanence" is further not enforced or monitored by (a lacking number of State) inspectors over 5, 10, 20, 50 years. The City is known to be data-driven; however, this proposed change is arguably not data-driven. In another subject area, the conclusion would likely be we don't have the data to know if, long-term, this is the right thing to do or not, and such a change would therefore not be made. Without this decision revolving around absolute data, known long-term facts, it is a potential risk to human health, safety and piece of mind for those who knowingly or unknowingly end up 100 ft from an abandoned well. In an extreme case, this change could cause direct injury or loss of human life. It could certainly reduce City residents' property values in the immediate area of an abandoned well that experiences any issue over time. Consider the language used in the following excerpts from an article related to plugged/plugging wells: When companies cease production, they are supposed to plug wells with cement to reduce the risk of leaks, and to restore vegetation and wildlife habitat aboveground. ["reducing the risk" of leaks is different than eliminating leaks or expecting no leaks to occur] Orphaned wells are more likely than properly plugged “abandoned” wells to leak pollutants, including methane gas, which can contaminate groundwater and even trigger explosions. [orphaned wells are "more likely" to leak - i.e. properly plugged wells can leak too] I would like to understand why the City feels as though plugging is in fact "permanent" and what data shows this to be the case, including in an age of natural disasters which are increasing in magnitude and scope 1.4 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 6 (including USGS documented human-caused seismic activity in areas of increased oil & gas activity). More importantly, if there is no risk over time, I'd like to understand why there is a setback at all. Why is it 350 ft. at the state level and why must it even be 100 ft. if there is no risk? Why not 10 ft.? I'd suggest it is because there is an implied ongoing level of risk but would appreciate the confirmation of such. Regards, Kevin Krause 3100 Rockwood Dr, 813 E. Elizabeth 1.4 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3/13/2018 www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47 http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47 1/1 Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds New well 3,200 feet away also might have contributed to spill By Pamela Johnson Reporter-Herald Staff Writer Loveland Reporter-Herald Posted:Thu Mar 08 10:29:33 MST 2018 Pressure caused by new drilling coupled with an improperly plugged well is suspected to have caused drilling mud to bubble out of an old well near Berthoud in late October. "The cement and abandonment did not happen correctly," Stuart Ellsworth, engineering manager for Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said this week. "The records that we found were paper records that said the cement was there." But after digging up the well site to investigate the spill, officials learned that the required amount of cement plugs were, in fact, not installed. In a previous interview, Ellsworth explained that the general process of capping a well requires at least four layers of cement plugs at strategic locations. "There was the top cement, and we believe that was all that was there," Ellsworth said. "It was inadequate." Records, however, falsely indicated that the well, which was capped and abandoned in 1984, had the correct amount of cement plugs, according to the report. While it is unclear how this happened 34 years ago, the commission has changed its rules in the intervening years to prevent this type of occurrence. "Today, what we do different is ask for documentation, third-party vendor verification," said Ellsworth. "We ask for the contractor's invoice. We don't care about the dollars, we are about the volume ... for how much cement was delivered and how much cement was placed." That documentation started in the 1990s, and the commission also does unannounced random inspections of wells that are being plugged and abandoned. But it wasn't the improper plugging alone that caused the drilling mud and small amounts of oil and gas to seep through holes in the welded cap on private property in the 2500 block of Colo. 60. The old well was apparently disturbed by new drilling into the same formation, resulting in the pressure needed to cause the drilling mud to bubble to the surface. Oddly enough, several wells drilled into the Niobrara Formation within a few hundred feet of this old well, including one that was only 98 feet away did not cause the pressure, Ellsworth said. Authorities believe the culprit was a well drilled in April 2017 that was much farther away and, unlike the closer wells, was perpendicular to the 1984, he reported. "That's one of the oddities about this situation," said Ellsworth. "There was a well less than 100 feet away that did not cause this to happen, but there's a well more than 3,000 feet away that may have caused this event." The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission reviews requests to drill within 1,500 feet of an old well to make sure this sort of situation does not happen. That review occurred in this case, though officials were relying on the records that indicated the 1984 well had been plugged properly. The landowner noticed the sludge discharging into his pasture and onto his driveway and ditch, heading toward the road, and called the fire department about 9 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 29. Emergency crews arrived and created dirt berms to contain the spill, and were soon joined by a drilling company with wells nearby and the company's special vacuum trucks to stop the flow. The company, Extraction Oil and Gas, remained onsite after the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission responded throughout the more than 12 days it took to properly replug the well. Because this well was abandoned and the original company no longer exists, the commission took charge of plugging the well. Initial estimates were that 300 barrels of drilling mud, containing some oil, spilled from the well. Pamela Johnson: 970-699-5405, johnsonp@reporter-herald.com, www.twitter.com/RHPamelaJ. Close Window Send To Printer 1.4 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Laura Shaffer <laura.shaffer@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:16 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Dear Rebecca Thanks for the unexpected update (I realize I signed up, but I still didn't expect much!). I really appreciate hearing from the city on this issue. It's just great that Fort Collins city government is so responsive. I really like the proposed Land Use Code changes. I think those changes better reflect what folks in Fort Collins rightly believe to be safe. I'm so glad to live in a city committed to its residents' safety and willing to make these changes -- and in particular doing so in response to feedback that the city sought out itself. Thank you Laura Shaffer On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 1.4 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings: • March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) • March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas 1.4 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Marsha Lotz <marshallotz3@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 1:46 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Thank you for your email. I think it's important to hear from the actual oil company out here, I think it is called Prospect Energy: and a representative from them about soil testing and ground water testing. I heard initially that they had their own people , "Talon", trying to locate an unused well site on the 80 acres east of us for the information of the proposed development. Some how we heard that some kind of agreement was made between the developers and the city planners to not use them. They know more than anyone about this oil field. Marsha Lotz On Mar 2, 2018 10:05 AM, "Rebecca Everette" <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings: 1.4 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 • March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) • March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas 1.4 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Doug and Nancy <dnmatkin@netzero.net> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:39 AM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged The original notice that we received stated that we live within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged gas/oil well. We live at the intersection of Precision Drive and Northern Lights Drive in Morningside Village. We would like you to pinpoint the location of that gas/oil well for us. I think the proposed buffers are sufficient, except for the setback around plugged or abandoned wells. I don’t think there should be a reduced setback for these. The current buffer should remain in place regardless of any further investigation. Thank you. Nancy Matkin From: Rebecca Everette Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:05 AM To: Undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings: 1.4 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 • March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) • March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas ____________________________________________________________ New Rule in Your City, Your State Leaves Drivers Fuming Better Finances http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/5aa54da736e04da51695st04vuc Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download o f this picture from the Internet. SponsoredBy Content.Ad 1.4 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:18 AM To: 'Max Moss' Cc: Rebecca Everette Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Attachments: Potential OG well setbacks 11x17.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Rebecca, Here is the diagram showing the wells nearby Montava. Thanks, Angie Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated 970.223.7577 From: Max Moss <Max@hf2m.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:11 AM To: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Thanks Angie, Rebecca, there are two main concerns we have. 1. How it impacts the two abandoned/capped wells on our property. 2. How it impacts the same type well on Tom Moores land as it relates to this setback which encroaches across our property line and could impair the school districts ability to use the site we are considering swapping with them for the high school site. Angie will share maps with you, we might as well be very direct about this, because it has huge implications on the development plan for Montava and the entire mountain vista sub area. Max Moss President | HF2M Colorado 430 N College Ave. Suite 410 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cell# 512‐507‐5570 www.montava.com On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> wrote: Rebecca, Do the buffers apply to new buildings/structures within these distances? Or simply the lot or property associated with a new development? 1.4 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 It seems that the buffer is increasing for both active and abandoned wells, with potential but no certainty for setback reductions. Since the PDT has been working hard to make the Development Review process more predictable, this seems to add to the uncertainty of the potential for setback reductions. I’m planning to send you a letter shortly with some specific concerns for the proposed language. I am leaving town later today so unfortunately cannot attend the P&Z hearing, but hope that you can include our comments for the hearing and for future board/commission/council hearings. Thanks, Angie Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated 970.223.7577 From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM Cc: recipient list not shown: Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:  March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)  March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)  March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)  April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. 1.4 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas 1.4 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:14 AM To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Cameron Gloss; Max Moss Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Attachments: O-G Setback Letter to Boards.pdf Rebecca, Thanks again for sharing the updated information with us and allowing us to make comment. I would like to share this letter with our comments, similar to those shared during the public and community outreach phase. I hope that this can be shared with the Planning and Zoning Board for their review this week. Thank you, Angie Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated 970.223.7577 From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM Cc: recipient list not shown: Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:  March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)  March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) 1.4 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2  March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)  April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas 1.4 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 1 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577 landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com March 12, 2018 Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations Dear Rebecca, Thank you for sharing the latest recommendations under consideration regarding required buffers around oil and gas wells. We support the city’s considerations to make changes to the setbacks that take into consideration the status of the wells and the potential surrounding uses – increased setbacks from active wells and decreased setbacks from permanently abandoned wells. These changes to the code have the potential to provide both better protections for the community, but also more certainty and predictability for property owners who wish to develop their lands in areas where wells are present. Unfortunately, the most recent code changes do not achieve this potential for both protections and predictability. The proposed code changes create greater restrictions, increased uncertainty and little predictability for property owners who wish to develop their properties in a manner that is otherwise compliant with the Land Use Code. For a property owner with permanently capped and abandoned wells who provides investigations, soil sampling and groundwater testing to demonstrate that the lands adjacent to the wells are safe, the setback for development would be automatically increased from 350 feet to either 500 or 1,000 feet depending on their planned land uses. While these costly investigations and testing activities may allow the setback to be reduced, the proposed code changes leave this as a discretionary reduction acceptance by the City. The City of Fort Collins Planning, Development and Transportation Department has been working diligently over the last several months to take specific measures to create a development review process that is predictable, timely, logical, accountable and customer- focused. These setback changes as currently written would have the opposite effect creating increased cost and less certainty for property owners even with permanently abandoned well sites. Please consider revising the planned code changes to align with the state standards by: 1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and 2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current state standards. 1.4 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 2 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577 landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com We provided this input during your community outreach period and continue to offer this as a logical approach to provide both better protection for the community and predictability for property owners who wish to develop their land otherwise meeting the requirements of the Land Use Code and goals of City Plan. We hope that you will share this input with the boards and commissions that are currently reviewing these changes and with City Council for their consideration. Sincerely, Angela K. Milewski BHA Design, Inc. 1.4 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 1 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577 landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com March 12, 2018 Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations Dear Rebecca, Thank you for sharing the latest recommendations under consideration regarding required buffers around oil and gas wells. We support the city’s considerations to make changes to the setbacks that take into consideration the status of the wells and the potential surrounding uses – increased setbacks from active wells and decreased setbacks from permanently abandoned wells. These changes to the code have the potential to provide both better protections for the community, but also more certainty and predictability for property owners who wish to develop their lands in areas where wells are present. Unfortunately, the most recent code changes do not achieve this potential for both protections and predictability. The proposed code changes create greater restrictions, increased uncertainty and little predictability for property owners who wish to develop their properties in a manner that is otherwise compliant with the Land Use Code. For a property owner with permanently capped and abandoned wells who provides investigations, soil sampling and groundwater testing to demonstrate that the lands adjacent to the wells are safe, the setback for development would be automatically increased from 350 feet to either 500 or 1,000 feet depending on their planned land uses. While these costly investigations and testing activities may allow the setback to be reduced, the proposed code changes leave this as a discretionary reduction acceptance by the City. The City of Fort Collins Planning, Development and Transportation Department has been working diligently over the last several months to take specific measures to create a development review process that is predictable, timely, logical, accountable and customer- focused. These setback changes as currently written would have the opposite effect creating increased cost and less certainty for property owners even with permanently abandoned well sites. Please consider revising the planned code changes to align with the state standards by: 1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and 2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current state standards. 1.4 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) BHA Design Incorporated 1603 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 2 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577 landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com We provided this input during your community outreach period and continue to offer this as a logical approach to provide both better protection for the community and predictability for property owners who wish to develop their land otherwise meeting the requirements of the Land Use Code and goals of City Plan. We hope that you will share this input with the boards and commissions that are currently reviewing these changes and with City Council for their consideration. Sincerely, Angela K. Milewski BHA Design, Inc. 1.4 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1.4 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) From: Gayla Martinez To: Rebecca Everette Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:42:59 AM Hi Rebecca, I would like to thank you for the presentation you made to the Planning and Zoning Board last night. If I had seen your presentation before preparing my own comments I would have made some modifications. First of all, I would congratulate the city for making a real effort to bring set-back regulations up to date and above all to incentivize developers to plug wells which are currently active. I would acknowledge that you and your team have clearly spent a lot of time studying the details and preparing a plan that considers input from various stakeholders. Fort Collins has benefited from a long history of outstanding local government and I believe that is more true today than ever. You have set high standards which in turn leads to high expectations. This is why I would like to encourage the city to go beyond the status quo. It’s clear that this process of getting approval for new regulations is long and arduous so if we are going to do it, lets reach beyond just catching up to current practice. The dual estate laws that currently constrain best practice were created in the 19th century when state demographics were entirely different from the reality we live with today. Unfortunately, local governments do not have authority to change those outdated laws. However, we do have the opportunity to position the city of Fort Collins for a much safer, healthier tomorrow through the changes that are being considered right now! The set-back regulations that have been proposed are outmoded. On-going scientific research is making that more and more clear every day. Municipal and state governments across the nation have been side-blinded by the rapid advancement of unconventional oil and gas extraction, but the numbers are now coming in and it is imperative that we pay attention! This is an opportunity. The evidence needed to make a clear and logical argument for greater set- back distances--for both active and abandoned wells--is out there. Future generations of Fort Collins residents will thank us if we can act with foresight and courage at this crucial moment. I would like to make available to you three documents that summarize some the most recent research. Clearly, none of us have the time to read all 1200 peer-reviewed studies that are now available, but even a brief review of the most pertinent information makes an incontrovertible case for the need to proceed with utmost caution. This has been the approach of most European nations who see the United States as a giant experiment on the impacts of fracking on human health. So far the results of that experiment are confirming their original hesitancy. I would prefer that our community not be a part of this experiment, (although we are already participating thanks to the significant amount of ozone floating in from Weld County). Greater set-back distances will, at the very least, minimize the mix of residential zoning with hazardous industrial activity. Here are the links that I would like to encourage you to take a look at: Health Impacts of Fracking Summary specific to Colorado. (The full report, Too Dirty, too Dangerous, can be found on the website of Physicians for Social Responsibility. The Harms of Fracking': New Report DetailsIncreased Risks of Asthma, Birth Defects and Cancer (There is a link at the beginning of this article to the full 266 page report. I suggest that you look specifically at the section titled "Abandoned and active oil and natural gas wells as pathways for gas and fluid migration," p.151.) Measure benzene, damn it! Includes a critique of the CSU study. Again, thank you for the work you have already put in on this project and for keeping the community informed and updated. 1.4 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Best regards, Gayla Maxwell Martinez 1.4 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Harv Teitelbaum <Harv@treeclimbingco.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:08 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Hearing Dates Hello Rebecca, How can I find out about any ex-parte or other communications or interactions Board members may have had with oil/gas industry personnel subsequent to the initial proposing of these Code changes? We are very interested in knowing, as the industry is notorious for back-room “turning” of public figures. Please let me know. Thank you. Harv Teitelbaum Lead, Beyond Oil & Gas Campaign, Sierra Club Colorado Harv.Teitelbaum@rmc.sierraclub.org 303.877.1870 On Mar 29, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello, I wanted to provide a brief update on the proposed Land Use Code changes related to oil and gas buffers. The Planning & Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board have all decided to continue their discussions on this topic and finalize their recommendations to City Council at their April board meetings. The City Council hearing date has been delayed to accommodate these schedule changes. Please see below for the updated schedule of board meetings and hearings:  April 16 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) – final recommendation  April 18 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) – final recommendation  April 19 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) – final recommendation  June 5 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) – consideration and first reading of proposed ordinance Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct 1.4 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 http://fcgov.com/oilandgas From: Rebecca Everette Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:05 AM Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input Good morning, You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells). Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April 2018: 1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells. 2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers. 3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well. 4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas operations. City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings: • March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) • March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) • April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes. The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com 970.416.2625 direct http://fcgov.com/oilandgas 1.4 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) From: Max Moss To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Angie Milewski Subject: Re: Montava - Oil & Gas Wells Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 6:13:19 AM Hi Rebecca. A question came up in a team meeting last week about the “science” behind the setback discussion. Since jurisdictions differ on these requirements, and in fact other jurisdictions have 150’ setbacks on active wells, not capped and abandoned, we wanted to understand the science behind the recommendations being considered. Can you help us with that so we understand? Max Moss President | HF2M Colorado 430 N College Ave. Suite 410 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cell# 512-507-5570 www.montava.com On Apr 2, 2018, at 5:59 PM, Jayroe, Jason <JJayroe@trcsolutions.com> wrote: Thanks Angie- In our experience there is likely nothing left on the surface to indicate the location of the well and depending on the age of the well, the records might not be very accurate. Our recommendation is to conduct a geophysical survey as a non-intrusive way to locate the well. We are looking into this but we are unsure if the Brownfield grant will cover any costs associated with identifying the location of the plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. We should know more about this by the end of this week. -Jason From: Angela Milewski [mailto:amilewski@bhadesign.com] Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 4:16 PM To: Jayroe, Jason <JJayroe@trcsolutions.com> Cc: 'Max Moss' <Max@hf2m.com> Subject: RE: Montava - Oil & Gas Wells Jason, I’m sorry for the delay in my response – I had to check our files to verify. While we did have a bit of surveying work done to help locate the water wells on the site, the locations of the oil/gas wells have not been surveyed nor confirmed. We are simply showing these locations on our mapping, assuming they exist based on the available mapping from the COGCC website – see below for a screen shot. 1.4 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:42 PM To: Rebecca Everette Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Hearing Dates Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Rebecca - I would like to provide some additional feedback regarding the newly revised code changes and ask that the feedback is shared with council as well as the members of the boards mentioned below ahead of their next meetings. #1 and #2: The 500 ft and 1,000 ft buffers are inadequate minimums. More and more data continues to come out that has highlighted the air quality and related health concerns at these distances. At 500 ft the concentrations of carcinogens and other concerning particles can be significantly elevated. As there is no invisible shield at 500 ft, for example, exposures and health concerns are still very present and concerning at 501 ft, 510 ft, 550 ft, 600 ft, etc. Here is one of the newest articles...from yesterday and associated research. Happy to provide others if helpful. #3: This continues to be an uninformed, inappropriate change that does not put the health and safety of Fort Collins residents first. There is no way around that fact. This distance should remain at 500 ft. Related, I attended a recent session where Broomfield city staff walked through their newly created program to monitor plugged and abandoned wells. It is clear that a percentage of such wells fail over time (a percentage which certainly increases over time). Their planned monitoring program is comprehensive and ongoing...it is not a single event but instead continues indefinitely because conditions and potential negative effects change and can come about over time. That means that their program and anything like it which would be absolutely required (the ongoing monitoring portion vs. just initial monitoring), needs to be funded ongoing and thus is a burden upon city taxpayers.That is the full time staff position, the technology development, maintenance and ongoing operational costs to do so effectively. Said differently, we (residents) should not be funding this and if the idea is to incentivize developers to ensure that wells are properly plugged so they can develop more and make more profit; if anything, they should be funding the ongoing, indefinite monitoring that is required to put homes or otherwise closer than appropriate to such wells. Not getting both the language requiring ongoing, indefinite monitoring for any plugged and abandoned well as well as requiring that developers fund this into any updated city code is a miss and I would consider it reckless. #4: It would be great to see more detail on this. It is critical that the true risks are conveyed and if this is the case as it should be, it will reduce the value of such properties. As a result, lower income families will likely occupy such properties, creating a divide and risk that they should not have to experience for the sake of more development. Please confirm you can send these items on as requested so they are available to the board members and council ahead of further consideration. I appreciate it. Thank you, Kevin Krause 1.4 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) From: Vicky McLane To: Rebecca Everette; Cassie Archuleta Subject: Fwd: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas facilities Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 7:31:01 AM Rebecca and Cassie - I am sure you have read about this study, but just in case you haven't, here it is. Would you share it with your respective Boards since I think it is an important piece of the oil and gas picture? Thanks, Vicky ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Doug Henderson <dhender@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:12 AM Subject: Fwd: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas facilities To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>, Terry Gilbert <gilberrt@co.larimer.co.us>, Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>, Fort Collins City Council <cityleaders@fcgov.com> The body of evidence about health dangers and harm from oil & gas operations is large and keeps expanding -- there are now over 1,300 studies and articles. Here is news of a scientific study conducted in the Front Range. And thank goodness at least one public health agency in the Front Range dares to publicize credible information about health dangers and harm from oil & gas. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Boulder County Health <bouldercounty@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:21 AM Subject: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas facilities The findings indicate that state and federal regulatory policies may not protect the health of populations living near oil & gas facilities. Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. 1.4 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) For Immediate Release April 9, 2018 Media Contact Gabi Boerkircher, 303-441-3399 Public Health Banner New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas facilities Lifetime cancer risk for those living within 500ft of an oil & gas facility is eight times higher than the EPA’s upper risk threshold Boulder County, Colo. - A recently released study of air samples collected across Colorado’s Northern Front Range shows elevated health risk for residents in proximity to oil and gas development. The study, led by Lisa McKenzie, PhD, MPH, Assistant Research Professor, at the Colorado School of Public Health, collated hundreds of samples from three analyses sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space 1.4 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Administration (NASA), Boulder County Public Health, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Boulder County Commissioners funded the analysis included in the study in 2014 in order to quantify methane, ozone, and volatile organic compound (VOC) levels from sites across Boulder County. The study found that the lifetime cancer risk for people living within 500 feet of an oil and gas facility is eight times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s upper risk threshold (8.3 per 10,000 vs 1 per 10,000 population respectively). The findings indicate that state and federal regulatory policies may not protect the health of populations living near oil and gas facilities. In particular, the risk of negative health effects is significant even at the 500-foot setback between newly-drilled oil and gas wells and existing homes, as required by Colorado’s current regulations. “The study provides further evidence that people living close to oil and gas facilities are at the greatest risk of acute and chronic health issues due to air pollutants emitted by those facilities,” said Pam Milmoe, Boulder County Public Health Air Quality Program Coordinator. “The results underscore the importance of not locating extraction facilities near homes, schools, and recreation areas, and having policies that require effective monitoring and reducing emissions from oil and gas facilities, for sites already in those areas.” The study considered more factors than what previous health risk studies included, such as short-term, repeated nighttime peaks, when levels can be higher due to temperature inversions, and childhood exposures. It also incorporated the most recent benzene health information and cites Boulder County’s 2017 analysis of data collected with the aid of an infrared camera that detected gas leaks at 65% of the 145 oil and gas sites inspected in Boulder County. “The results of this health study should support additional emission controls on wellsite equipment, and stronger leak detection and repair requirements statewide, just as we used the gas leak data to support stronger regulations recently adopted by the state Air Quality Control Commission,” said Milmoe. “We have always been, and certainly with release of this study, are increasingly concerned about the health risks associated with oil and gas development in such close proximity to residential areas,” said Deb Gardner, Boulder County Commissioner. “A 500 foot setback, as required by current Colorado law, is clearly not adequate to protect the health and safety of our residents. This study demonstrates the need for immediate action by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state legislature, and the courts to safeguard the lives of Colorado residents against the devastating health effects of oil and gas development near businesses, homes, and schools.” See the press release from the University of Colorado. The study is available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05983. For more information about Boulder County’s work in response to oil and gas development, visit the Oil & Gas Development webpage. 1.4 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Harv Teitelbaum <harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 2:01 PM To: Rebecca Everette Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Council Date Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good afternoon Rebecca, Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. In addition to the previous email I sent about safe/non‐safe buffer distances, researched health risks, and explosion evacuation zones, I wanted to mention a fracking exposure situation I wrote about in the Boulder Daily Camera that affected Ft. Collins‐area residents without their knowledge. I've bolded the section below that directly pertains to the Ft. Collins area. As you can see, venting releases of toxic fracking emissions are not uncommon, and are almost always unreported. We only looked into the Windsor toxic gas venting because of the fire and explosion. Please share with City Council as they make their deliberations on buffers. Thank you. ‐Harv Teitelbaum Was Windsor fracking site sending pollution to BoCo for 12 hours prior to explosion and fire? Boulder Daily Camera, March 10, 2018 In the days following Dec. 22, 2017, researchers from INSTAAR were making their routine examination of measurements registered at the Boulder Reservoir. What puzzled them were readings of exceptionally high levels of the atmospheric pollutants ethane, propane, benzene, and toluene, chemicals known to have toxic effects on human health and produce ozone, a harmful air pollutant linked to some 10,000 premature deaths in the U.S. every year. The levels of these four pollutants, associated with natural gas production, that day measured higher than any ever recorded at the station, representing exposures 10- 100 times background levels. It was not long after that the researchers learned of a major explosion and fire at an Extraction Gas production site in Windsor, almost 50 miles away, that same day. Was there a connection to the high pollutant readings at the Boulder monitoring station? Using the monitoring station's own meteorological capabilities along with data from NOAA, the scientists looked at wind "back trajectories," which are the paths the air took before hitting the station that day. Knowing that the Boulder readings for the four pollutants spiked roughly during the hours between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., they wondered if the back trajectory data would show any wind trajectories during that same window directly connecting the monitoring station to the vicinity of the Windsor site. Yes, at the time of the spike, wind trajectories closely aligned with the Windsor area. Tracing back in time, trajectories indicated the plumes left the Windsor well site area early in the morning of Dec. 22. But correlation is not causation. And wind trajectories, such as those that traced back roughly 7-10 hours to the Windsor well area, become less reliable with each hour of rewound time. Therefore, more evidence was needed. 1.4 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 In addition to measuring wind plumes backward from the station, forward wind trajectory information is also available from NOAA. So the researchers next looked for any forward wind trajectories from Windsor that aligned with the backward trajectories from Boulder for the same window of time. And again they found them. Between 6-8 a.m. forward trajectories from Windsor closely aligned with the later day back trajectories from the Boulder Reservoir station. This added confidence that the plume had heavy natural gas influence and originated in the area of the Windsor well site. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission conducted an on-site field inspection the night of the explosion and fire, but was unable to observe any obvious causes. The 60-day accident report, filed on Feb. 23 by the operator, Extraction, said only that the investigation was still "ongoing" and that "gas and ignition source are still being investigated" by "third party fire investigators." In other words, they still didn't know, or weren't saying, what caused the explosion and fire. However, the report did mention several possibilities, including an "(o)pen line or valve, or leak on flash gas management system," along with several other possible natural gas venting sources. While there is much we still don't know, evidence suggests a connection between venting of natural gas- related toxics at the Windsor well site and the high readings at the Boulder Reservoir monitoring station on Dec. 22. With this, we can draw additional conclusions. Considering dissipation over time and distance, the concentration levels of the pollutants were undoubtedly considerably higher closer to their source about 50 wind miles away. Those neighborhoods closer to the Windsor site would have been exposed to even higher levels of these toxics, for perhaps longer periods of time, and along multiple wind trajectories. For example, the forward wind trajectories from Windsor indicate that after 9 a.m., wind from the Windsor site shifted toward the north, which would have taken any plumes directly over the greater Fort Collins area, about 10 miles away, with some outlying communities considerably closer and therefore potentially exposed to more highly concentrated emissions. A review of approximately 10 months worth of atmospheric readings from the Boulder monitoring station for the ethane/propane pair found many similar, but smaller spiking events for these same chemicals. The backward wind trajectories for most of these events traced back to either Greeley, Weld County, or the Broomfield area. It may be that major natural gas venting events at fracking sites are not uncommon. The Boulder County commissioners are to be commended for funding the CU/INSTAAR monitoring which helped produce this data. Hopefully, they will use it wisely in determining how best to address the planned fracking onslaught into Boulder County. Harv Teitelbaum leads the Beyond Oil & Gas Campaign for Sierra Club Colorado. On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 at 09:54, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote: 1.4 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 Good morning, Thank you for your interest in the proposed Land Use Code changes related to the buffers around oil and gas wells. City Council has decided to discuss this item at an upcoming worksession prior to considering the adoption of any code changes. No public comment will be heard at the worksession, and no formal decision will be made. Instead, Council will provide direction to staff on next steps related to the code changes. A final hearing date has not been scheduled. Here is the worksession info:  City Council Worksession – Tuesday, June 19  6:00 pm at City Hall, 300 Laporte  You can attend in person, watch on TV (Channel 14), or stream live at https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ The following advisory boards have provided recommendations to City Council on the proposed code changes:  Planning & Zoning Board  Natural Resources Advisory Board  Air Quality Advisory Board Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Thanks, Rebecca Everette, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct https://www.fcgov.com/oilandgas/ 1.4 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Public Comments Received To Date (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 19, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Whitley and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Shepard, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Frickey, Everette and Gerber ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** Discussion Agenda: Member Rollins recused herself from this item. 4. Oil and Gas Buffers - Land Use Code Changes Project Description: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2 (Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that citizen emails and letters were received and are as follows. Jerry Dauth provided three articles about Oil and Gas for the Board’s consideration. The Board received comment and recommendation from the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Received Code Amendments (to include language that exempts approved development plans. Joyce Devaney sent a letter stating that she is in favor of increased setbacks and hopes that the Board votes in favor as well. Joyce is very concerned about the health effects of fracking. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ATTACHMENT 5 1.5 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Disclosures Member Whitley disclosed that he had ex parte communication in the form of a presentation he attended presented by the League of Women’s Voters in Longmont Colorado. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Everette gave a brief overview of current and proposed Land Use Code regarding oil and gas wells, their type, how many are known to exist, their locations and development potential near these wells. Planner Everette followed up with clarification and answers to questions asked at the previous months P&Z hearing. Member Hobbs asked if a slide in the presentation could be revisited. Member Hobbs read a bullet point at the bottom of a slide; the direct approval of any sampling plan is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan may be required to include, but is not limited to the following. Member Hobbs remarked and asked that this is a menu of the types of things that a Director of Planning could ask for, but it is not a complete list of all the things that are required, is that correct? Planner Everett responded that that is correct. That the way the code is currently written, allows some flexibility depending on the situation of that particular site. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jerry Dauth, 1925 Serramonte Dr., emphasized the safety of larger buffers zones. There is evidence that states that plugged wells can leak. Would like measuring to be done over time. Vicky Mclane, 1607 Ticonderoga Dr., asks that the setback not be reduced for plugged and abandoned wells. She is requesting that the setback be increased to 500’. The risk of cancer is 8 times higher if the setback is less. There is a high leakage rate for plugged wells. Would like continuous monitoring, Vicky knows that it is expensive, but also knows that there is equipment not yet vetted, but in process at CSU. Gayla Martinez, 3378 Liverpool St., she seconded what Vicky Mclane requested. Gayla is requesting that the setbacks not be less than 500’. Gayla offered two points to support the argument; 1) Quote from Professor Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, “it is physically impossible to ensure that a well will not leak”. 2) Study lead by Lisa McKinzie of Colorado School of Public Health “lifetime cancer risks for those living within 500’ of wells is 8 times higher”. Staff Response Planner Everette appreciated the comments received from the three citizens. Planner Everette stated that all studies reviewed by the citizens were also reviewed by commenter staff and have informed the staff recommendation and added that many of the studies that relate to well leakage and failure also include active and fracked wells. It is hard to teas out how much leakage is associated with plugged and abandoned wells in particular. Board Questions Member Hansen spoke to the amount of $100,000 salary for staff that the City of Longmont pays to have this person monitor wells. The question was, how many wells is this one individual overseeing and how does it compare to the number of wells in Fort Collins? Planner Everette stated that the number of wells in Longmont is comparable to that of Fort Collins. 10 to 20 active and 20-30 plugged and abandoned wells. The $100,000 per year includes oversight of a contractor that goes out and does the sampling and at about $2,500 to $3,000 a well. They are able to sample all of their plugged and abandoned wells across the City. Not necessarily every well every year, but the ones they have the most concerns about, they are able to hit each year. The Longmont program started with initial site investigation and surveying, which is costlier. Roughly $16,000 per well. Staff has estimated that just the initial site investigation would cover about 6 wells in the first year at $100,000. Member Heinz requested clarification. There is a $100,000 position of someone who oversees a contractor that does the testing? And then the contractor charges $2,000 to $3,000 per well. Planner Everette explained that 1.5 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5 there is a dedicated staff person that has their own salary that is separate from $100,000. The $100,000 is just to pay a contractor to do the annual site sampling and recording. Member Heinz asked about the setback reduction from 350’ to 150’. Why did this change come up, why the reduction? Planner Everette responded for all wells, active or plugged and abandoned under the proposed code changes the new buffer would be 500’ for residential development or 1000’ for high occupancy building units. This would be the starting point. A developer could pursue alternative compliance for a reduced buffer. The 150’ minimum was determined in consultation with the City of Longmont contractors that do site sampling around wells in Colorado and around the country and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff. The consensus from the groups is that 150’ would be a safe radius for residential development, even if some leakage or site contamination were to occur. Member Heinz asked if the default was 500’, but that if they meet some certain criteria, they could possibly go to 150’. Planner Everette stated that was correct and it would be up to the P&Z Board or an administrative hearing officer to decide. Chair Schneider asked for clarification regarding which type of wells, natural gas or oil, we have in Fort Collins. Planner Everette responded that it was correct, we have oil wells. Chair Schneider stated that all the research and studies were based on natural gas wells leaking. He did not see anything regarding oil wells leaking. Planner Everette stated that much of the research lumps it all together. It is hard to determine what the leakage rate would look like. The most recent well to be drilled in Fort Collins was in the 1990’s. We do not have much of the newer oil and gas production that other communities have. Chair Schneider asked if staff looked at setting different setbacks depending on if it is an oil well or natural gas well. Planner Everette stated that staff did not consider separate setbacks for different types of production. It was asked about the potential for natural gas production in Fort Collins, there is no way to rule it out. It is not impossible, but not likely in the short term, near future there would be any natural gas interest in Fort Collins. Member Carpenter asked if staff looked at adding another requirement to the alternative compliance so that it does have to be somehow the operator that will pay for the continuous monitoring or annual monitoring? Planner Everette stated that staff has not added recommendation for ongoing annual monitoring. There are options for funding and staff wanted to leave that type of consideration up to the Board and City Council as to whether that type of cost is something that is worth putting on the developer or more likely a future homeowner that would live adjacent to that well, or if it is something the City would be willing to take on. Member Hobbs stated that the code verbiage does not require that monitoring equipment is ever installed, it’s one of a number of things that could be asked for, correct? Planner Everette replied that is how it is worded, correct. Staff’s intent is that would be required at all times, but that is not how the code language is worded. Member Hansen asked for verification Planner Everette responded that that was correct. Member Hansen asked if a developer chose to respect the 500’ setback, then they would not be required to verify location or do any testing or provide any monitoring, is this correct? Planner Everette responded that is correct. That is how the proposed code language is written. Member Hanse followed up by stating it would be advantageous to the City and its citizens to encourage developers to do that kind of study. Have you gotten any feedback on the cost versus the benefit? Planner Everette pulled up a slide on cost. For Plugging and abandoning a well is roughly $84,000, the cost for research and sampling if a well is already abandoned is roughly $31,000. The thought behind the alternative compliance option was that it would create a strong financial incentive for a developer to complete the sampling and site investigation and survey work in exchange for developable acreage. Requirements could be shifted around so that certain requirements could applicable no matter what the buffer distance is. The intent behind requiring the full sampling plan and analysis in exchange for the reduced buffer is that there would be a financial incentive for that. Board Deliberation Chair Schneider does not see how the City could demand of the developer extended testing as most often once the site is complete the LLC dissolves and the HOA takes over, and it becomes their burden and probably becomes dues to homeowners. Member Heinz asked if he meant the real estate developer that shows up to do the development, not the oil developer? Chair Schneider, correct. Member Hobbs pointed out that the Board needs to 1.5 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 accept the fact that there may not be HOA’s in some areas. Member Hobbs agrees with Member Hansen in that his concerns center on the alternative compliance issue. In this case we are talking about public health and it is felt that it is difficult to ask the P&Z Board and City staff to administer in perpetuity. Member Whitley wanted to know if staff had considered eliminating alternative compliance or making it more stringent? Member Hobbs responded that he feels we are dealing with a public safety issue that is difficult to access or predict the long-term effects. He feels it is not correct to place responsibility for that on a Planning and Zoning staff. In his view, this is something that needs environmental and scientific experts to deal with, and even then, you don’t know what is going to happen to a well in the future. Airing on the side of being conservative, preference would be to eliminate the alternative compliance and leave the setback at 500’ for abandoned wells. Member Whitley, Heinz and Carpenter all agreed. Member Schneider disagreed as he feels that due diligence needs to be completed to get the reduced setback and that people are willingly buying and willing living in that area. If someone has a major concern, then they should probably not live in that area. It is no different than an airport, people choose to live there. Also, we do not know what the future holds in the way of technology. Member Heinz feels that maybe it could get modified and setback then. She does not want to be responsible for health risks. We just do not know. Chair Schneider stated that we are talking about oil wells, if it were gas wells he might have a different opinion. He just does not see the same risk as fracking. Member Whitley asked what risks have been identified so far? There is no telling what might come in the future. Member Hansen stated that there is also an environmental health concern and if we do not give developers some incentive to investigate and possibly remedy substandard conditions at these wells, there could be a ticking time bomb that we don’t even know about. Even at the projected cost we have, that’s really cheap developable acreage, this is a huge incentive, even if the costs increase 3 to 5 times. Member Hobbs feels that the potential hazards and the potential monitoring of those hazards, the technology to monitor that in real time and in perpetuity is evolving. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about a hand full of locations within the GMA. Member Hobbs is willing to say there could be situations where the economics curve and the cost of monitoring that satisfied the surrounding citizens and this board, both of which would be voices that would be heard in such a situation, could be arrived at. He feels that the alternative compliance is too much of an open door and that treating those handful of what are currently 5 active and 10 abandoned wells with the ability for a developer to come in with a modification like we saw Waters Edge do and propose something that works, that I would agree to. But, I agree to eliminating the alternative compliance. Member Carpenter agrees with not eliminating the alternative compliance and that we have no way of saying that gas is more harmful than oil. We just don’t have that information in front of us. Member Carpenter would like to get rid of the alternative compliance. They can recommend with a modification. Chair Schneider asked if they would feel better if it was a mandated stipulation, here are the things that need to be done? Member Hansen’s concern with eliminating alternative compliance and opening it up for modifications, is that there is no set of standards that we want to see to justify reducing from 500’ to 200’ or 150’. You will have people coming in to reduce it to 50’, because the land use code will not have any standard to set what we expect out of those modifications. Member Carpenter agrees and feels there could not be a modification. Member Heinz stated that anyone could ask for a modification, but it would make sense if it were, “could be no closer than X”, and in the event that someone was asking for a modification they would have to meet these seven criteria. At that point it would be almost the same as allowing the alternative compliance. Member Heinz is concerned for the health of the people than the developer getting more place to live. Member Whitley agreed. Chair Schneider Is concerned because when the Board approved Waters Edge, there was only one person that objected, he is trying to understand. Member Carpenter feels as though they have more information at this point. At the time the previous project went through, there was no data. This time we have been give much more information. Member Whitley suspects that Waters Edge would be different if it were brought up now. Member Heinz asked if it would make sense to break this up if we are not going to agree to all of the recommendations? Member Whitley asked if they could just eliminate the object of compliance section, section C? Chair Schneider responded that it could be part of the motion. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board submit a recommendation to City Council to approve the land use code amendments relating to oil and gas buffers as submitted in the staff report with the exception of 3.8.26C4C and that this recommendation is based upon the agenda materials presented at work session, this hearing and the public comments that we have heard tonight. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider asked City Attorney Yatabe if the motion made sense. Attorney Yatabe stated yes. Member Hobbs commented that he is appreciative of staff’s work. Having reciprocal buffers 1.5 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5 that work in conjunction with the State setbacks that they require of the oil and gas producers. He feels that the way that it has been designed to parallel that into changes that changes. These setbacks will change if the State setbacks become greater. This is a good set to do that and it is a good step to have better notification on the plats for potential land or homeowners to allow a conscious decision of living close to either an abandoned well or existing well. Member Carpenter also thanked staff for their patience in answering all the questions and helping to educate the Board so that they could make an informed decision on the issue. Member Whitley also thanked staff on this new and evolving information. Member Heinz thanked the citizens who attended every meeting to say something and show their passion. Member Hansen appreciated staff’s efforts. He is not in support of the motion as it currently stands. Member Heinz asked if they could make a motion to Council that the City take it upon itself to test out some of those abandoned wells? Chair Schneider thanked the citizens for being active and involved. Staff came to the Board with very well drafted land use code change for oil and gas, unfortunately he cannot support those changes based on the motion. He would like to have the ability to look at potential reductions that people are going to put in the time to look at the wells and make sure they are safe and clean. He does not feel we have all the research yet. He feels there should be the alternative compliance available. Vote: 4:2 (Schneider and Hansen dissenting). ***END EXERPT*** Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. 1.5 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing March 15, 2018 EXCERPT FOR OIL AND GAS Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Rollins Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Everette, and Gerber ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** Discussion Agenda: 3. OIL AND GAS LAND USE CODE CHANGES Project Description: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2 (Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that Harv Teitelbaum of the Sierra Cub, expressed concerns about the health risks and safety hazards related to fracking. Kevin & Adrian Krause questioned the setback requirements for plugged/abandoned wells, and expressed concerns about health and safety risks, lack of long-term data, and potential reductions in property values. This email included an article about an oil spill near Berthoud. Laura Shaffer supports the proposed Land Use Code changes. Marsha Lotz commented that it would be important to hear from Prospect Energy regarding soil and groundwater testing. Max Moss, with HF2M Colorado, and Angela Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 1.5 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Milewski, with BHA Design, expressed concerns about impacts of the proposed changes on the Montava development project, particularly for plugged and abandoned wells. They proposed alternative changes that they would support. Nancy Matkin supports the code changes, except the reduced setback for plugged/abandoned wells, and would also like to know exactly where the well near her is located. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, gave a brief overview of this project in relation to the code changes that will be considered and how they relate to the buffer standards around existing oil and gas operations. Additional information is available for discussion if needed. Clarifying Questions Member Carpenter, asked Planner Everette to revisit the Montava piece in regard to a school and what would happen. Planner Everette explained that the property is currently owned by the Poudre School District and is intended for a new High School. The buffer for high occupancy building units would be measured from the edge of the oil and gas operation site to the nearest corner of an occupied building. Currently this would not prevent a school from being built on this site, if the buffer were to apply, it would prevent an edge of the school building from being located in that buffer. Montava is partnering with the School District to determine the exact location. Member Carpenter asked if the School District would have to work around this so that we did not have any piece of the school in the zone. Planner Everette explained the complicating factor with schools is the review process which is different than the typical Type I, Type II processes. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Vickey McLane, 1607 Ticonderoga Dr., supports a 500ft. setback for plugged and abandoned wells. Mrs. McLane stated it is not known by the City or COGCC how many wells and their locations have been plugged and abandoned and if they have been plugged properly. Mrs. McLane feels that all plugs fail sooner or later, so we are not dealing with absolute permanence on these plugged and abandoned wells. It is important that we have a maximum setback to protect human health and safety and she feels the records are very clear about the dangers of not having an adequate setback. Gayla Maxwell Martinez, 3378 Liverpool St., asked what the reasoning that is the data or evidence on which these proposed setback distances are based? She is not asking for an explanation of the legal or conventional precedent, but such precedence does not constitute good planning for our current realities or recognition of new knowledge and understanding that might guide us to better choices for our community’s future. Quoted Dr. Sandra Steingraber. Staff Response Planner Everette responded to Ms. McLane. Requirements we have built into the alternative compliance that would help us to identify the exact location of the wells, this would be a requirement for the developer to locate any wells on their property including the ones that we are aware of and pinpoint with GSP the exact location of those wells. We would also require investigation in to when and how those wells were plugged using any historic research and data that we can find, as well as any site investigations that may need to occur. There are methods such as ground penetrating radar that can be used to assess what is happening underground. Soil, ground water and soil gas testing will also be required to determine whether any impacts are occurring. Alternative compliance requires a point-in-time snapshot of what is happening on-site in terms of testing, and does not require further ongoing monitoring, which is something that could be considered. Planner Everette responded to Ms. Martinez. Regarding the scientific reasoning for the setback distance and concerns about fracking, impacts to human health and the impacts of oil and gas operations on air quality and various pollutants that can impact air quality and public health. Those studies that have been done to our knowledge have been done for active oil and gas operations. We do not dispute any of the findings that were stated. One of the stated goals of these code changes would be to incentivize developers to work with operators to remove active oil and gas operations and to permanently plug and abandon those wells so that those air quality impacts would not be occurring in proximity to our residents within the City limits. Articles have been reviewed and 1.5 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 6 reasoning distance for setbacks come from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservations Commissions standards for their new wells and matching those standards. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette to explain what other cities in Colorado are doing in terms of instituting reciprocal setbacks. Planner Everette responded that it is variable along the Front Range and that the City looked at the best practices. It is inconsistent and a majority did not have reciprocal setbacks or the number varied widely, some matched the States requirements, some were narrower and some communities have adopted wider requirements. The only community found to have a setback from plugged and abandoned wells is Longmont at 150’. Member Hobbs asked what the process would be if the State mandates setbacks that are different from what the proposed code change will be. Will we be back to square one? Planner Everette stated that the City of Fort Collins would increase if the State increased. Member Hobbs asked for clarification regarding the State not having a setback for plugged and abandoned wells. Planner Everette responded that is correct. Member Hobbs asked, what if they instituted a setback? Planner Everette responded that it covers both active and plugged and abandoned wells and that the default buffer would be 500’ unless a developer sought alternative compliance. Member Heinz asked about legal liability and the City. Mr. Yatabe responded that it is a very fact specific inquiry. It is difficult to answer but generally the City has quite a bit of governmental immunity along those lines, but there are exceptions and we would have to examine it at that time. Member Heinz asked if in general there could be liability back on the City? Mr. Yatabe responded that it depends on what is happening, and that he could not say that there is not potential liability, but again it is a very fact-based inquiry. Member Hansen spoke to the map of Montava regarding two wells near the site that are not on the property in question, if these are abandoned wells that need testing and monitoring set up, I do not see the incentive that you were hoping for because the owner of that well is not affected by that property, has that been thought through at all? Planner Everette pointed out the two wells and stated that the developer would be impacted by the buffers around those wells even though the wells are not on their property, the developer would still have an incentive to try to work with the adjacent property owner to do the site investigation. They would need to determine if it is in their best interest. Member Hansen asked, so they just must hope that their neighbor is willing to cooperate with them? Planner Everette responded yes. Member Hansen asked if the standard would have to apply if it were just outside the City limits? Planner Everette responded yes, if a well was affecting the development property then we would be considering those wells that are outside the City limits. Member Whitley asked about monitoring. I believe we are asking for the installation of permanent monitoring for the future use. How easy would it be to convert that to active monitoring in perpetuity if there is a problem with say methane leaking? Planner Everette spoke to soil and ground water monitoring on an annual basis, this is not a continuous monitoring. Air quality monitoring can be continuous and this is what Longmont is doing. Member Whitley asked if Longmont was the only community doing this? Planner Everette responded that Longmont is the only community that she is aware of that has a comprehensive program where they are evaluating all their plugged and abandoned wells in particular and that is something the City has chosen to fund. Member Whitley assumes that they have more plugged and abandoned wells than we do. Do you have an estimate of the liability of the cost of putting in air monitoring around Fort Collings? Planner Everette responded that Longmont has a comparable number of wells to Fort Collins. Planner Everette asked for a moment to look up the costing. Chair Schneider asked Planner Gloss or Mr. Yatabe asked about the setbacks at time of final plat and if existing developments would not have these setbacks put onto them. For instance, if an individual wanted to add onto their home, could they with the new setbacks in place? Planner Everette responded that the setbacks would apply to any project that had to go through the development review process. No, they would not be held to the new setback standards, if they were submitting for an unplatted project, then the setbacks would follow the Land Use Code. Member Schneider asked for clarification in that an existing home could be added to and would not have to comply because of the setbacks at the time because you already have a building there. Planner Everette deferred to Planner Gloss and Mr. Yatabe. Mr. Yatabe spoke to the intent and that this was for projects moving forward, however; he would like to speak to Planner Everette and staff for further clarification. 1.5 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Chair Schneider asked if there is an existing daycare or in-home daycare within the new setback, are they ok or would you consider them non-conforming? Planner Everette would like to get and research for clarification. Planner Gloss responded that he believes this would be a legal non-conforming use, that it is an existing condition that new regulations are creating the non-conformity, although we should be clarifying in the code change to make certain that the language is crystal clear. Chair Schneider talked of his concern with school sites and PSD development. Example, they do not have to follow our setbacks, correct? They follow their own rules and regulations. Planner Gloss, as you recall, they are bound by the Site Plan advisory review which follow State statutes and the three criteria are based on the location character and extend of the development relative to our adopted plans. That is the charge of the Board when that development plan would come in for the School District. It is hard to say until you have something in front of you, exactly how you would apply this criteria in that case. Member Schneider asked if there have been any conversations with PSD to ask if they will comply? Planner Everette responded that there is not been any direct outreach to PSD. Member Schneider asked if this was time pressing issue or should we get some clarifications on the code language before we make a recommendation to Council to make sure that we have our information that we need, since we will potentially be the governing body on interpreting these rules and regulations for future work, is this something that we might want to consider tabling to get better clarification? Planner Everette responded that this is not something that has urgency that is being mandated. This would be up to the Board to consider. Member Schneider addressed the Board regarding their thoughts to any uncertainty or needed clarification. He does not want to push this forward without having full understanding. Member Whitley shares Member Schneider’s concerns, he would like to have more time to look at it. Member Heinz asked if there was a sense of wanting to get it confirmed before we get more development proposals out in this area. Planner Everette responded that it is certainly a potential and that there is one development proposal that is actively in development review at this time that these standards would not apply to that has wells on its site that will be coming before the Board in the next couple months. The Montava project is the largest development project that we are aware of that has wells on the property, as well as adjacent properties with wells that could be affected but do not have any pending development proposals. Member Schneider asked for clarification. Wouldn’t they still have to comply because nothing has been built at this point, even if they are in the process now? Planner Gloss responded that once you have a completed development application in, you are subject to the standards that are in affect at the time of submittal. Member Schneider felt that he had heard that this would be retroactive to all development plans. Planner Everette responded that this would apply to any development plans moving forward that are submitted once this code change was adopted. For instance, if Montava were to be submitted next week, these code changes would not be in effect, they would be subject to our current code requirements. Member Hobbs shared concerns with PSD. What could we accomplish with negotiations? Would they not want to look at this on a case-by-case basis, or do you think that we could negotiate an acceptance of these setbacks in general? What do you think we could get there? Chair Schneider - As an example the City of Fort Collins put into a mandate, no more cellphone towers on City owned property, then PSD followed suite with that. I would rather move forward knowing that PSD is wanting and willing to comply with these also instead of having us go through a review and then get challenged. Member Carpenter asked if this was something that if Poudre School District was not going to do, would we consider not doing it? They either are onboard or not. Member Schneider does not disagree, but he feels it would be nice to have that communication factor established and set before we move forward, especially if there are other clarifying questions that need to be addressed. Member Heinz – Does it make sense to recommend that Council talk to PSD. Member Schneider replied no and that staff would talk to PSD. Member Schneider does not understand why communication with PSD did not happen this time, especially when we knowingly have a site with impact. Member Heinz does not feel she needs the information to make a decision. Member Carpenter feels the same as Member Heinz, she is ready to move forward with a decision, no real reason to put if off any longer, except for the legal clarifications. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette, up until these code changes are adopted, the current status quo for the Montava project would be the State regulation or 500’ from an abandoned well, is that correct? Planner Everett responded no, If Montava were subject to the current code requirements the required buffer would be 350’, because it would be under the Fort Collins code, not the State. This would apply to both active and plugged and abandoned wells unless they pursed a modification. Member Hobbs spoke of his concern over waiting was that 1.5 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 6 something could come in that would have a smaller radius from these wells from Montava. Given that we have 350” now along with a potential of having a modification like Waters Edge, Mr. Hobbs does not see any problem in delaying so that the issues could be worked out. Member Whitley asked Planner Everette if she had found the cost estimates from Longmont. She did not have that information on hand but provided alternative cost scenarios. Member Heinz asked Planner Everette to pull up previous slides and discuss the buffers and incidents that have happened in the past. Member Heinz asked Planner Everette what the approximate area that the homes were built away from abandoned or plugged wells. Planner Everette responded that in the Trinidad case the home was built directly on top of the well and that they were not aware of the well. The well was not properly plugged. In Firestone, the well was not directly adjacent to the home but rather the incident was caused by a flow line leading from a well that was not plugged and abandoned, it was a shut-in well that had not been properly disconnected from the flow line. Member Heinz asked what a shut-in well was. Planner Everette explained that a shut-in well has been temporarily turned off, has not been plugged, has not been abandoned, however, there is an option for it to be reactivated if needed. Member Carpenter asked if there were monitors available for individual homes. Planner Everette has not yet followed up on that question. Member Carpenter requested the Planner Everette provide that information. Member Heinz asked about data collected from Longmont. Planner Everette stated it was private as they have yet to publish publicly. Member Whitley asked how hard it would be to change the wording to reflect Longmont’s air quality monitoring? Planner Everette responded that it would not be difficult to add that to the code changes, that you would just need to evaluate what the consequence of that would be and insure that the Board agrees on that. Member Whitley stated he had asked for the numbers, but that they were not available. Chair Schneider stated that it might be another good reason to postpone, to gather some more information, and that he would feel uncomfortable adding this as a requirement without having background. Member Heinz asked what kind of background he needed? Member Schneider responded that between cost and effectiveness, who does it, etc. Member Heinz asked if they also measuring effectiveness? Planner Everette responded by asking, if they are measuring the effectiveness of the monitors themselves? Member Heinz responded yes to Member Schneider clarified, yes, how effective are the monitors, the cost, how far do they read? Planner Everette responded that staff can get that information, we do not have that information currently. Member Schneider stated that just having that background would let us know how far away we are monitoring, what the other parameters that we are looking at and how much do they really protect. Member Whitley asked if Longmont is keeping this information confidential and how open would they be to share any of this information with us confidentially? Planner Everette could not speak to how open they would be to share confidential information; however, they will be releasing the information to the public once they have finalized their reports. Planner Everette did let the Board know that there is a presentation that the City of Longmont will be coming to the City of Fort Collins to give on March 19th that will showcase their program and maybe in that presentation might be some of the desired information. Member Whitley asked staff if they could put off consideration of this until after that meeting? Member Whitley is very interested in attending the presentation. Member Heinz asked the members of the Board if they could postpone until special meeting? Member Schneider stated that the special session scheduled for March 29th has already been posted and could not be added at this time. It would have to be discussed at April’s meeting. Member Whitley asked if postponing this for one month would be that big of a problem? Planner Everette responded that there is no issue except Council, etc. However, if the Board wishes to postpone, then they should. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette if the people from Longmont were coming up to present to the Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory Board or the Natural Resources Advisory Board? Planner Everette stated that they are not coming up to present to those advisory boards, but that Jason Elkins was invited by the League of Women Voters 1.5 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 6 to come give the presentation to the broader community. The presentation will take place at the Coloradoan at 11:30 a.m. Member Hobbs asked if it will be televised on Channel 14? Planner Everette responded that she did not believe there are plans to televise. This is not a City sponsored event. The Coloradoan may film it. Planner Gloss commented to the Board that they have the discretion to move it to the April 19th hearing or you could just continue it without a specific date. The notification would be less of an issue because it is a legislative item. Member Carpenter asked if it going to go ahead and go to Council, or will it wait until after our recommendation, because she did not want to get into a situation where Council hears it without our recommendation? Planner Gloss responded yes, we would wait until after the Board’s recommendation to take it on to the City Council. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette if she would be attending the presentation. Planner Everette replied yes. Members Hobbs would like to hear an update at the next work session from Planner Everette along with her notes or views on the Fort Collins Air Quality and Natural Resources Board’s issues that they have come up with, especially the Air Quality Board. Member Schneider asked if Member Hobbs is requesting to continue to a later date at this point. Member Hobbs thought Planner Gloss’s suggestion was to continue with an open continuation. Planner Gloss feels as though the assignments given to staff could be turned around fast enough to bring it back before the Board on April 19th. Member Hobbs feels that it would be good to move this forward and get it to Council. Member Heinz asked if their attendance would be considered ex parte information? Mr. Yatabe responded that since this is a legislative matter, you can attend the presentation with a strong suggestion that if you do attend you disclose so that you can put information on the record. This is not an issue as far as an ex parte communication. Member Whitley asked if an invitation was needed to go to the presentation? Planner Everette responded no, it is open to the public. Member Hansen would like to include some specific action items to justify why this is being continued. Member Whitley believes the Board is looking for more information from the Air Quality Board and Natural Resources Board and the group from Longmont’s presentation on Monday to enable the Board to make a more balanced decision. Member Heinz asked if in specific, are there not items with PSD that we want to include in that? Chair Schneider replied with PSD and the legal matters, legal non-conforming and additional clarifications items to make sure the code language is solid, the effectiveness, estimates of cost for monitoring and the radius. Member Carpenter add, and the estimates of cost for monitoring. Member Hansen made a motion continue this Land Use Code changes in regard to Oil and Gas wells and facilities to be continued to April 19th with the goal of researching and adding to the proposed changes to get more information of the effectiveness of active air monitoring and associated costs, PSD discussion initiation, to get input back to P&Z from other Fort Collins Boards and Commissions, to research the availability of in home monitoring for the gasses that may be associated with failing plugged and abandoned wells. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. ***END EXCERPT*** 1.5 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221-6600 970.224-6177 - fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Nancy DuTeau, on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) SUBJECT: Land Use Code Updates for Oil & Gas operations Regulation of oil & gas operations is a complicated issue in Colorado. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) standards for permitting and operation, including setbacks, are not based on scientific evidence of health and economic effects on citizens, but rather a compromise with special interests, primarily Oil & Gas Producers and Developers. NRAB strongly recommends Council direct staff to use all mechanisms available within city authority to increase protection of health of residents and to reduce air and property contamination. In addition, we recommend city leadership adopt positions advocating evidence- based state standards for permitting and operation. The COGCC has the authority to permit new oil & gas wells as well as set standards for operation and closing of wells. The state is responsible for inspections for compliance with operation standards and has an orphan well fund for sealing abandoned wells. The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) has a mobile unit for sampling air quality in residential areas in response to complaints of residents of health effects from chemical exposures at sites. The city, on the other hand, has two main ways to control interactions between Oil & Gas operations and residents:  the City has authority through Land Use Code to set buffers between oil & gas operations and new development, including buffer and site characteristics.  the City creates operator agreements with producers for individual permitted sites NRAB recommends that Council adopt proposed changes to the Land Use Code to reflect the new state regulations for setbacks for new wells, to apply to new development near existing and abandoned oil & gas operations (reciprocal setbacks) with the addition of:  3.8.26 (C) (4) (a) “Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, with the exception of playgrounds and parking lots of high occupancy building units”. ATTACHMENT 6 1.6 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes)  3.8.26 (C) (4) (c) Require identification of Responsible Party when plugged well seal fails; add requirements for repair, annual third-party monitoring, bonding requirements to address any future well integrity issues, and inspection.  Amend the Land Use Code definition for where the buffer (reciprocal setback) is measured to be from the edge of the property line to the edge of the well site, as opposed to the edge of the nearest occupied building. The NRAB recommends that the City operator agreement for producers at individual sites include  specific requirements for monitoring as outlined in 3.8.26 (C) (4) (c) (i) (B). Additional Recommendations Citizens of Fort Collins are deeply engaged in the debate about regulation of Oil & Gas operations in our state and the effects on their health and property. This is clearly shown by the passage of a citizen-initiated moratorium on fracking within our city and on city land in 2013. NRAB has been following this issue for several years with technical presentations by outside scientific groups like -- CSU and National Center for Atmospheric Research for example -- some of whom have been hired by the City to perform analysis on air quality, toxic gas levels at active wells, and contributions to ozone, in addition to presentations at regular meetings by staff. NRAB recommends that Council move forward with:  Verifying Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) readiness for abandoned well seal failures and active well accidents. There are 10 active and 20 abandoned wells within city limits. No wells sealed recently or in the past will remain sealed indefinitely, because the current technology does not create a permanent seal.  Installing a 3rd air monitoring station in Southeast Fort Collins as recommended in City- funded study by National Center for Atmospheric Research. Results of wind analysis document impact of gases from daytime upslope winds from oil & gas operations in Weld County on ozone levels in our city.  Approving an Economic Analysis of health and economic effects on citizen health and property contamination, including impacts of natural gas and other pollutants from operations outside the city.  Pursuing ways to protect Natural Areas, parks and open spaces from oil & gas operations whether the source is within or beyond City boundaries.  Urging the COGCC to increase buffer zones and to change the measurement of setbacks from edge of well site to edge of property. Current setback measures to the edge of buildings which, for schools, increases exposure of children on playgrounds and for other facilities increases exposure to those who choose to enjoy outdoor spaces. cc: Darin Atteberry Lindsay Ex 1.6 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 6 of 7 NRAB – April 18, 2018 Ryan Mounce, Barry Noon and Elizabeth Hudetz had a lively discussion about the various opportunities for the community to get involved in creating this plan. Non-profit input, community workshops, community ambassadors, and interactive web sites are only a few of the activities planned to gather input from community members. Ryan said that at the website for City Planning, there is a list of events and activities for community involvement. Ryan said that notably engaged to the process is CSU Leadership, Faculty, Staff and Students. Upon completion of this discussion, Nancy DuTeau thanked him for his updates and, thereafter, Ryan Mounce exited. Rebecca Everette stayed for the following discussion. VII. OIL & GAS REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION DRAFT Last month Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner – City of Fort Collins asked the NRAB for a recommendation for proposed Land use changes such as 1. Increased the buffer for Residential Development to 500 ft. (from 350 ft.), 2. The buffer for High Occupancy Residential Buildings to 1,000 ft., 3. Reduce the buffer on Permanently Abandoned wells to 150 ft. (giving Developers incentives with additional land availability), 4. Notice to future property owners via the property title search system, and 5. Enhanced Code Definitions. There is a scheduled discussion on these items in a Planning and Zoning meeting Thursday, April 19, 2018. Nancy DuTeau said that the NRAB members wanted to specify that the measurement from existing wells for “new development” should begin at the property line instead of the building. This was important in the case of parking lots and playgrounds. The NRAB also wanted to proscribe a way to determine a responsible party for well seal failures. There ensued some discussion on the different government agencies, oversight and responsibilities for development codes, rules and regulations. For example dormant, functioning, and new wells all acquiesce to various and different levels of government (Federal, State, County and City) depending on the particular property and well characteristics. The recommendation requested today is quite narrow. Rebecca Everette explained that operator agreements could address liability for new wells, but that is not this evening’s issue. The instant issue is for the City and use Code changes to match the State regulations on Land Developers not Oil and Gas companies. Upon request, Rebecca defined “occupied building” under the codes to mean residential, office/retail, and schools. Places like storage facilities are not included. She mentioned that there are ten (10) active and three (3) producing wells in Fort Collins. Elizabeth Hudetz resumed her espousal for the highest buffer zone possible in all scenarios (2,500 ft.). One matter driving her advocacy is fear of increased illness (cancer rates) near wells. Also, she expressed much concern that there are not nearly enough inspectors for the high number of wells and that concrete seals on wells are expensive but not permanent solutions and will, at some point, crack. Lawsuits brought by citizens and municipalities against oil and gas companies encourage Elizabeth. Nancy DuTeau added that wind patterns affect the ozone by wells located outside the county from drifting pollutants from neighboring communities with more dense oil and gas operations. Danielle Buttke said that Alzheimer’s is now linked to pollutants. There was agreement among NRAB members that the trend is going toward tougher regulations on oil and gas development. Barry Noon wanted to add Bond Requirements on Developers for potential failures and incidents at abandoned wells. Discussion ensued that the measurements of buffer distances start at the property line. Nancy DuTeau focused the discussion on tonight’s requirement of a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning meeting tomorrow for the specific request. The NRAB will continue to work on the formal memo (via email) for City Council recommendations due mid-May. Elizabeth Hudetz made a motion that buffer measurements should begin at the edge of playgrounds and parking lots, not at the building/structure and that Fort Collins should changes its buffer measurement. Additionally, include annual third-party monitoring and require developer bond requirements for failures. Luke Caldwell seconded this motion. The Vote Passed unanimously. Natural Resources Advisory Board 1.6 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 7 of 7 NRAB – April 18, 2018 Nancy DuTeau thanked Rebecca for her time. Rebecca Everette also thanked the NRAB for their patience with the technicality of the issues. VIII. UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS  Elizabeth Hudetz was enthusiastic about an event this Sunday (April 22) for Earth Day with Colorado Rising and Fort Collins City Plan Ambassador Program. Scheduled discussion about the 2,500-ft. set-back initiative for Oil & Gas development. Avogadro’s Number from 2-5 PM.  Bob Mann attended the Wasteshed Advisory meeting last month and after recounting the highlights, he noticed that he needed to re-visit some follow up dates as there are conflicting meetings and presentation in the coming weeks. He will update the NRAB members re same.  Luke Caldwell mentioned the Northern Colorado Recycling Roundtable on April 24, 6-8:30 PM. RSVP @ CAFR.org.  Lindsay gave an overview of the upcoming Super Board meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:13 PM. Natural Resources Advisory Board 1.6 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 / 6 NRAB – March 21, 2018 Gayla Maxwell Martinez gave an impassioned speech leading up to the evening’s discussion regarding Oil and Gas Proposed Buffer Zones. The legacy of her family extends far into Fort Collins history and her love and concern for the City of Fort Collins is apparent. First, she noted the impressive work that the City of Fort Collins has done with the natural areas and its diligence and protectionism in regards to the Oil and Gas Regulations within the City’s purview. During a Master Naturalist Training Class, she learned that the City does not own the mining rights on their natural areas, which greatly concerns her. She discovered that the oil in the area is minimal and does not attract Industry interest, however other neighboring areas have greater risk. Gayla cautions that the Oil and Gas Industry (“Industry”) is too aggressive. She pointed out the challenges Boulder, Colorado faces with numerous legal battles re their effort to thwart invasive drilling. She emphasizes that The City of Fort Collins can only be protective for so long until the Industry (and developers) pushes back with legal challenges here as well. Gayla continued by asserting her recommendation that the buffer zones should be at least ½ mile. Dangers of diminutive buffer zones are documented by numerous science-based and peer edited essays. She says the Industry record in Colorado for oil spills and accidents has been dismal, even within the past two weeks. Her preference is to extend the buffer zone as far back as possible. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Nancy DuTeau and NRAB members made a few revisions and clarifications to the February 21, 2018 Natural Resources Advisory Board (“NRAB”) draft meeting minutes. Luke Caldwell made a motion to approve, as amended, the February 21, 2018 minutes; seconded by Elizabeth Hudetz. The motion passed unanimously. IV. OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner, City of Fort Collins, made a presentation to the NRAB to solicit comment and City Council recommendations re proposed code changes. These code changes consist primarily of modifications to existing buffer zones to match the State of Colorado regulations. The current buffer zone matched the State of Colorado regulations when enacted. This meeting is part of the outreach effort by the department to gather feedback and support from the community and various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. An example of community outreach effort is a mailing to residents within 1000 ft. of a well apprising residents of an opportunity to express concerns. The concerns were primarily regarding the exact location of wells and health and safety. This public input resulted in revisions to the proposed code changes. Rebecca gave an overview of the number of wells located in the City of Fort Collins. Of the sixteen- (16) total operating wells, only ten- (10) were within city limits and an additional thirty- (30) are abandoned wells from various decades. There have been no new wells drilled since the 1990s. The proposed changes are: • Increase the buffer for Residential Development to 500 ft. (from 350 ft.) • Add a buffer for High Occupancy Building Units of 1,000 ft. • Allow for a reduced buffer on Permanently Abandoned wells if specific site investigation requirements are met, with a minimum buffer of 150 ft. (giving Developers incentives with additional land availability) • Notice to future property owners via the property covenants • Updating relevant code definitions The additional buffer on High Occupancy Buildings (schools, nursing homes, childcare centers, hospitals, etc.) would provide additional protection for vulnerable (elderly, children and infirm) populations. Luke Caldwell wanted to examine the criteria for the 1,000-ft. buffer. He thought perhaps this buffer zone would be appropriate for shrapnel from an explosion, for example, but wondered about escaped gases that can travel over 1,000 feet. He offered that enhanced ventilation or other safety equipment be considered. Rebecca Everette mentions that technology such as monitors and radon mitigation systems exist. Questioning the “tiers system,” Ling Wang added that 1,000 ft. could be the standard for every site. Rebecca explained that the buffer zones reflect a compromise position between the interested parties. Added difficulties such as site-specific Natural Resources Advisory Board 1.6 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 / 6 NRAB – March 21, 2018 topography and wind-direction, for example, vary in each locale; thus, the “zones” pose challenges for scientific, well- documented studies. Rebecca noted that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sets buffer regulations for new oil and gas wells. In contrast, the City of Fort Collins regulates how close the wells will come to the populace. Nancy DuTeau asked whether the City of Fort Collins could be stricter in their regulations than the State of Colorado. Rebecca replied that “Operator Agreements” contracts clauses might mitigate any concerns, but other communities have run into legal issues related to additional regulation for oil and gas operations. As part of her presentation, Rebecca showed a Fort Collins City map with an “imaginary well.” Around the well were several circles representing the various buffer zones allowing NRAB members to observe a representation of the proposed buffer zones in an actual populated setting. Another illustration displayed an actual Fort Collins Neighborhood with a well (Hearth Fire). She also showed the development plans for Water’s Edge, which reflect a “variance” granted to the developer with assurances of mitigation on abandoned wells in the project. “Alternative Compliance” is a method to provide flexibility to developers on certain standards and could allow for reduced buffer zones if certain requirements are met. Rebecca reviewed the COGCC requirements for plugging and abandoning wells. Elizabeth Hudetz was concerned about the endurance since cement and concrete can crack over time. Rebecca agreed that there would always be risk of failure and leakage, but that the 150’ buffer zone is generous for the risk. An assessment and analysis of an Abandoned Well failure in Trinidad, Colorado (in the 1980’s) showed that the failure resulted in about ½ acre of seepage that is less than the 150’ buffer zone currently contemplated. Jay Adams inquired about the nature and permanency of the marker for such wells to which Rebecca replied that they are similar to manhole covers commonly found in city streets. These are likely not visible from the street. Rebecca Everette went on to explain that a reduced buffer (150 ft.) at Abandoned Wells is an incentive to developers to seal the wells in accordance with state standards. Luke Caldwell asked about monitoring for failures. Rebecca said there are several options for reporting such as the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Luke also asked who might be responsible for repair. Rebecca said that it would be a “case specific” determination depending on the individual circumstances. A modest “Orphaned Well” fund exists for wells that no longer have a responsible party in business. Luke noted that the “Waters’ Edge” senior development (north of Fort Collins Country Club) might put the Homeowners Association (HOA) at risk in that case. Expressing trepidation for federal support in this issue (reporting), Elizabeth Hudetz noted that the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is experiencing adversity in its current administration. Rebecca replied that the State of Colorado Agencies are the primary organizations to address any issues. She was concerned that any Federal and State regulations or policies were in flux. Elizabeth specifically mentioned the “Martinez Case” (a legal challenge to current Oil and Gas state “fracking” - regulations, climate and public health standards) currently winding its way through the Colorado court system. (Note: “fracking” is water, chemicals and other materials injected to the terrain at high pressure to break rock and extract oil and gas.) There are potential significant implications on the industry standards therefrom. Elizabeth Hudetz advocates setting higher standards immediately. Elizabeth Hudetz discussed recent concerns from the Greeley community surrounding the issue and related that back to the public comment from Gayla Martinez earlier in the evening. She said that there are documented impacts to the health of a fetus by a low birth rate, for example, within a mile of a “fracking” site. She finalized these concerns by noting that a 4-year-old child’s death at “Hearth Fire” may be a result of impotent regulations. She is concerned about the residents and future residents in our community. Rebecca Everette agreed that there are documented health impacts. Danielle Buttke mentioned the well monitoring costs. Building upon that line of thinking, it was mentioned that a NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care) admission was upwards at $100K, therefore any monitoring costs would be reasonable in comparison. Danielle Buttke inquired about any requirement for disclosure to future residents. Rebecca said there are existing requirements for disclosure as well as a proposal for an additional method of notice within property title searches. Another detail brought to light by Elizabeth Hudetz is that there are only 17 well inspectors for thousands of wells and that seems insufficient for a vigilant program. Danielle Buttke added that any standards without monitoring, response and responsibility is ineffective. General agreement that the diesel-spill incident on Riverside Drive was handled well by the responders. Natural Resources Advisory Board 1.6 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 / 6 NRAB – March 21, 2018 Nancy DuTeau brought up the idea of a moratorium and Rebecca said that the intention was a casualty in a prior legal challenge. Elizabeth Hudetz added that perhaps the “Martinez Case” would give us some margin in this area since the judges seem to be ruling (thus far) in favor of enhanced regulations. Nancy DuTeau also wanted to analyze the considerations of City versus State regulations, specifically how that influences NRAB recommendations to City Council. Nancy thought it would not be appropriate (at the City level) to increase buffer zones. Rebecca Everette said that the basic request is to change the City standards to meet what is required at the State of Colorado level. Elizabeth Hudetz advocated for a moratorium and 1,000-ft. buffer zone minimum especially near schools and outdoor/recreation areas. Elizabeth and Nancy DuTeau discussed that the present issue before the NRAB (recommendation) is a separate question from the dispute (and potential resulting regulations) in the “Martinez Case”. Luke Caldwell and Danielle Buttke endorsed an increased buffer in High Occupancy buildings. Concerning the parties involved in the negotiation between developers and oil and gas operators, Elizabeth Hudetz said it is appropriate to consider third-party oversight. Nancy DuTeau concluded the discussion by noting that April 13, 2018 is the due date for a first draft of recommendations. The Fort Collins City Council will review all observations, commentary and recommendations in June 2018. V. POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK RECOMMENDATION Kurt Friesen - Park Planning and Development Director, City of Fort Collins began his presentation by introducing his colleagues. Joining Kurt this evening to assist is Jeff Mihelich - Deputy City Manager, Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer, and Matt Day, Sr Landscape Architect from the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of the presentation tonight is to outline a plan for additional funding for optional features on the Poudre River Whitewater Park. The presenters hope that the NRAB will recommend their enhanced design to the City Council of Fort Collins. Jeff Mihelich noted that this project is a legacy project initiated in 2011. The project is located near the intersection of College Avenue and Vine. The project has successfully moved forward such that construction bids will be accepted in the near future. He was enthusiastic about the project overall. Kurt Friesen gave a high-level overview of various segments of the project. First, he noted that the property acquisition phase is complete which was necessary for visibility from the road, safety of visitors, and a park site. A bridge will connect downtown Fort Collins (southside) with the North side business and residential area of the Poudre River. It will become part of the Trail System and provide pedestrian access. The proposed “South Bank Wall” is a plaza with shade structure and more funds are necessary to add seating to encourage “gathering.” The landscaping will be restorative with native plantings. Concrete walks provide greater accessibility. Included in the plan is a “play area.” Lighting, cameras and emergency call boxes are proposed safety features. Included in the plan is “Dark Sky” light fixtures, which minimize glare, reduce light trespass and sky glow. Vine Drive improvements include sidewalks, bike lanes, a parkway and parking. The goal is to make the area attractive to increase interest in the area. A grant from the Poudre Heritage Alliance (“PHA” promotes Poudre River’s national significance in water development, water law and water management) might fund a “Heritage Walk” area. The most critical improvement is the flood plain and floodway . This must be completed at the front end and not in “stages.” This is a costly and time-sensitive part of the plan. Of interest was the 1865 Coy Ditch in the proposed area that previously irrigated the family farmland. In 1958, the City purchased the water rights. In 1980, the water was used to irrigate a now-defunct golf course and now will be reworked as part of a low-impact water improvement operation within the Whitewater Park Project. This modification also helps correct flooding and erosion issues while slowing flow in the play area. Jay Adams was interested in the South Bank of the River and its impact on the business in that area. Kurt Friesen said that the North College business area is evolving and the bridge will provide North and South businesses reciprocal access. The neighbors on both sides of the river are in support. Luke Caldwell asked for an overview of the River Access for ADA individuals. Kurt replied that a properly sloped concrete sidewalk ramp from the sidewalk to the edge of the river provides access for ADA individuals. Two “pools” provide kayak river access and a kayak “play” area. This increases the season for kayakers during the “off season” on the Poudre River traditional recreational areas. In addition, river tubing is encouraged. Natural Resources Advisory Board 1.6 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 | Page code updates in an effort to better control light pollution. One of the goals is to pursue International Dark Sky Certification for Soapstone National Area which offers darker than natural conditions with outstanding views of the cosmos. Gary and Cassie have been working on night sky monitoring to gain a baseline for the City of Fort Collins to additionally be certified. The aggregation of lights from neighboring cities creates a sky dome where the cosmos is invisible to the naked eye. Among the nuisances of light are glare, Sky glow and light trespass. Ideally, selecting minimum and energy efficient lighting to the areas needed for security, walking and visibility will reduce light pollution. Potential Land Use Code updates would set light limits on maximum pole height, position of light mount as well as hours of operation, thus limiting backlight, up-light and glare (BUG ratings) Discussion How is Fort Collins addressing this lighting issue? Gary: Building code standards are in place for all new developments within the City. Luke likes the regulation proposed that 75% of light fixtures be efficiency lamps. Why not aim for 95%. Gary: We would like to see target, an achievable goal in order to gage success. John asks what the timeline is? Rebecca: A 2018 timeline is set with the code update being presented to the Council in the Spring 2018. Bob inquires whether there will be any door to door outreach encouragement for porch light upgrades in 2018? Rebecca: This was on the table but did not take place. Bob asks how does warm verses cool lighting affect us? Rebecca: Blue during the day and red at night would be better for humans and wildlife, and there is still some research going on in this regard. Gary reminds the Board that LED is usually perceived as a brighter light. Rebecca: Education is still needed in this area. Nancy requested that safety be redefined to include access to buildings if there were ADA guidelines or in general, e.g., having lighting to unlock a door, outside doorway access into the building. AGENDA ITEM 3: Update on Oil and Gas Regulations Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner and Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Program Manager provided a presentation about Land Use Code requirements for buffering between oil and gas operations and new land development. Code changes will be considered by City Council in early 2018. (Information/Discussion: 40 min.). One of the Board Members is recording the presentation. The Planning Department’s focus is on the development and land use for current and existing oil and gas development that may come into use in the future. There will be three code changes going before the City Council. 1) Remove references to the 2013 hydraulic fracturing (fracking) moratorium 2) Increase setback requirements for new development projects near existing, active oil and gas operations from 350 ft. to 500 ft. 3) Reduce setback requirements for Natural Resources Advisory Board December 20, 2017 1.6 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 | Page new development projects near plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells from 350 ft. to 150 ft. Oil and gas is regulated by the State. Fort Collins does not regulate the permitting or regulating; that is done by the State. Fort Collins may determine the zone districts such as new wells and industrial districts which are only found in small parts of city. Mitigation requirements, fencing, landscaping, and visual impact to properties are outlined by the City. All properties should be notified, within 1000 ft. of active or abandoned wells, with disclosures whether they be plugged and abandoned, may be both; prior to 1950’s, abandonment. Reciprocal setback: Distance between new land development and existing oil and gas operations. Current code is 350 ft. buffer for new development. Proposed code to increase to 500 ft. for new developments as the state standard is 500 ft. Fort Collins wants to be consistent with the state standards. Code is measured in relation to circumference. Discussion Elizabeth: The Martinez Ruling states that there will be no more permits allows until it is safe for humans and animals. The City should essentially be in a moratorium. Oil and Gas is not following the law right now. Rebecca: I will look into that with the City Attorney Office. Luke: Is the 500; buffer related to air quality impacts related to human health? Cassie: This is the current State level. The air level goes down the further out we go. Elizabeth: There is a new study, recently release, indicating the causal relationship between health and wells in which the Hearthfire was an inevitable time bomb. Studies have shown that within 10 miles does have a causal relationship on people’s health. Rebecca: Our production in Fort Collins is very low. John: In Weld County, what is the average distance in high production areas. Cassie: They can locate multiple wells on one pad with up to 20 or 30 on one pad. Nancy: Broomfield County is unique and one of the strictest in the state. Luke: What is the designation of abandoned wells? Rebecca: It is a permanent thing. Cassie: This includes abandoning the mineral rights. Luke: I understand the financial incentive for reducing the buffer zone in abandoned and plugged wells, and as long as there is continued monitoring, why not use as a community green space after adequate testing is completed? John: Concrete is not good in the long term. The wells still need monitoring. We need to make individuals aware of the long term dangers associated with these abandoned wells. Nancy: Broomfield developers were responsible for mapping all the old and abandoned wells. John: In the areas that surround the abandoned sites, what landscaping would mitigate the wells? Rebecca: The wells are tapped below ground. You would not see the well on the surface. There would be landscaping or a marker as indicated. Cassie: Water is pumped down to push dead oil out. With gas wells you may see some coloration. These are different than the big wells in Weld County. Jay: What is the enforcement for the plugging and the abandonment? Rebecca: State does the Natural Resources Advisory Board December 20, 2017 1.6 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 5 | Page inspecting upon abandonment. Verify. Complaints, inspection is made by the State. Carrie: The state has an orphan well program. Elizabeth: There are fewer inspectors to number of wells. Ling: What constitutes a new well for monitoring – what is the timeframe? Rebecca: Current, now, current abandonment. We do not know how far back, 2013? Jay: There are new housing developments going on near the wells outlined in the map, towards the east of town. I am worried and not a believer. Rebecca: There is housing, much nearer the well than 350 ft. previously. Remember that the 350 ft. was established in 2013. Elizabeth: Frack hitting is going on. It is hitting old wells causing damage to the environment. Toxicity, explosions, Greeley wells exploded. I emailed the Firestone video to the board. John: What about the industrial zone? Rebecca: She will provide. Luke: If new wells were to come in where would they be allowed? Rebecca: A lot of the industrial zone is near Anheiser Bush area. Montavo area, east south. Elizabeth: They drill where they feel it is best, not having consideration for the residents. It is against the law to perform new fracking. We are on a moratorium. Jay: Do you have an expanded map? Rebecca to send extended map. Elizabeth: Does the city have emergency blast zone? Cassie: We have one operator in town and we do have an emergency response team trained to manage this type of event. Elizabeth has handed out two pages of questions. Questions are prepared by Shane Davis and Wendall Bradley. Due to the time constraint of the meeting, Nancy DuTeau, Chair has asked the presented to get back with the Board with their answers to these numerous questions. There is an online survey available: http://gcgov.com/oilandgas. There are also drop-in times to speak with city staff personally with any questions. Updates and Announcements • Thank you to John Bartholow for 8 years of service. • Thank you to Katy McLaren for sharing her knowledge and experience. • Update on E-bikes including trails and widening of trails. ____________________________________________________________________________ Meeting Adjourned: 8:43 p.m. Next Meeting: January 17, 2018 Natural Resources Advisory Board December 20, 2017 1.6 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221-6600 fcgov.com/environmentalservices MEMORANDUM Date: May 22, 2018 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Mark Houdashelt, AQAB Chair CC: Air Quality Advisory Board Darin Atteberry, City Manager Re: AQAB Recommendation Related to Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates ___________________________________________________________________________________ The Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) has considered the issue of development setbacks from oil and gas facilities in Fort Collins. As you are all aware from Fort Collins’ failed attempt to enact a moratorium on oil and gas development, this is a complicated and controversial issue. Currently, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has the authority to regulate setbacks of new oil and gas operations from existing development, while local jurisdictions can regulate setbacks of development from existing oil and gas operations. However, the COGCC’s authority and decision‐ making criteria are being challenged by local initiatives in Longmont and Thornton, for example, and by the Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission case being considered by the Colorado Supreme Court. Currently, City Staff is recommending that the Land Use Code be changed, such that:  The buffer required between new residential development and existing oil and gas operations be increased from 350 feet to 500 feet, and the buffer required between new High Occupancy Building Units and existing oil and gas operations be set at 1000 feet. The proposed buffers are the same as those designated by the COGCC for new oil and gas operations and existing development/HOBUs (the COGCC buffers), and Staff is also proposing that these new buffers automatically vary to match the COGCC buffers should the COGCC buffers change.  An alternative compliance buffer of no less than 150 feet be considered by the appropriate decision‐maker around plugged and abandoned wells, and the fencing requirements in place for the larger buffer not apply for the alternative compliance buffer, if the following specific conditions are met: o A site survey confirms the well location; o Confirmation that the plugging or replugging of the well meets current State standards; o Soil, air and groundwater sampling are performed; o Permanent monitoring equipment is installed for future use; o The area is deemed safe for residential development; and ATTACHMENT 7 1.7 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) o Other site‐specific requirements, as needed and appropriate, are met.  Any new properties or buildings within 1000 feet of a plugged and abandoned well show information about the well in the property covenant, in addition to that currently required to be included in the recorded subdivision plat. Given the situation within Colorado, and taking into account the proposal from Fort Collins staff, the AQAB recommends the following changes to City Code related to oil and gas setbacks:  For minimum setbacks of new development from existing oil and gas operations, we recommend that the City implement setbacks consistent with those recommended by staff. Additionally, the Board recommends that: o setbacks from active wells are not eligible for variances. o setbacks are measured from property lines as opposed to the edge of the nearest occupied building.  For minimum setbacks of new development from plugged and abandoned wells, the situation is more uncertain, as little research has been performed on the failure rates, health impacts and other potential dangers associated with these types of facilities. Therefore, we recommend that the City implement the same setbacks between new development and plugged and abandoned wells as those adopted between new development and existing oil and gas operations with no alternative compliance buffer allowed, as the Board feels that staff’s proposed code changes for alternative compliance buffers is incomplete. For example, there is not any requirement for remediation following initial testing and/or ongoing monitoring (and notifications of testing results) and subsequent remediation. The AQAB appreciates the opportunity to express our thoughts to City Council on this important issue, and we would be happy to reconsider this recommendation should the Staff proposal change, more information become available, or some of the concerns expressed above be addressed. 1.7 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave. Time: 5:30–8:00pm For Reference Mark Houdashelt, Chair Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398 Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison 970-416-2648 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Greg Clark Matt Tribby Chris Wood Arsineh Hecobian Mark Houdashelt, Chair Karen Artell Harry Edwards Vara Vissa, Vice-Chair Jim Dennison Staff Present Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison Matt Parker, Natural Areas Crew Chief Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Department Director Guests Tom Moore, Citizen Hugh Mackay, Citizen Call to order: 5:32 pm Public Comments Tom Moore referred to an editorial concerning the obstacles related to adult mosquito spraying. He stated that he would like more information regarding measurements on how to effectively control spray. He also expressed interest in improved metrics to determine the benefits of spraying and, more specifically, would like to see the quantitative rate of change in West Nile virus cases in areas that have been sprayed. Matt Parker noted that City Staff would like such metrics as well, but they are not available at this point. Approval of Minutes Harry moved, and Arsineh seconded a motion to approve the March minutes as presented with edits. Motion passed, 7-0-1. 1.7 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) AGENDA ITEM 1: West Nile Virus - Management Policy Updates Matt Parker, Natural Areas Crew Chief, provided an overview regarding potential updates to thresholds for adult mosquito management actions. This item is scheduled to go before Council on May 15, 2018. Current Management and Monitoring Program  Fort Collins’ management program is based on the CDC model for Integrated Mosquito Management. It integrates public education, larval management, surveillance, adult mosquito control and continual improvement assessment.  Current public outreach includes the use of print materials (bus benches, banners, newspapers), social media (Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter), trailhead indicators (Skeeter Meters and insecticide wipes) and the City of Fort Collins website. Focus populations include softball/baseball players, runners, homeless, non-English speaking citizens and river recreators.  The current monitoring plan consists of 53 traps that are set and collected weekly during mid-June through mid-September. CSU tests the collected mosquitos for West Nile virus (WNV) and calculates the vector index on a weekly basis. The vector index represents the infection rate of Culex mosquito species in tested traps. West Nile Virus Amplification  WNV is housed in avian populations and spreads when a mosquito bites an infected bird then lays eggs and bites another bird or human. When birds congregate the rate of infection can increase significantly. Current Adult Mosquito Control  Spraying for mosquitos is the last tool used to combat WNV (decreased exposure through education and larval management is preferred). It is performed based on a recommendation from the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment.  Currently, spraying for adult Culex mosquitoes is prompted by a vector index value of 0.75 or greater and either confirmation of more than one human case of WNV per week or more than one WNV positive blood donor reported during the season. Proposed Changes and Rationale  City Staff would like to decrease the vector index to 0.50 and remove the human case requirement(s). They believe this will enable them to initiate spraying sooner so that they can target smaller areas to get ahead of amplification and reduce the likelihood of City-wide or quadrant-wide spraying.  Recent studies suggest that WNV-related deaths/complications may be under-represented due to significant long-term effects (neurological, chronic kidney disease) that weren’t previously linked to the virus. These studies prompted the Technical Advisory Committee to reevaluate the vector index threshold; however, the Committee has not identified a precise threshold, nor has consensus been reached regarding an appropriate human case consideration. A recommendation from the AQAB was requested regarding the threshold changes proposed by City staff. Discussion  Jim asked if the CDC has calculated a recommended vector index for a climate like Fort Collins’. - Matt replied that the CDC does not provide climate-specific recommendations. Technical Advisory Committee recommendations range from 0.33 to 1.0.  Vara inquired about real-time monitoring (maps) and seasonal predictions for WNV cases. - Matt responded that the CDC has a program dedicated to monitoring the WNV; they track 40-50 species of mosquito populations that fluctuate with climate change. With these fluctuations, the 1.7 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) distribution of mosquito-borne diseases has also changed, but not at a rate that warrants real-time tracking.  Arsineh asked for more detail regarding the vector index, including how the number of infected traps are chosen, how the index is calculated and if the CDC recommends a specific sample area for such calculations. - Matt stated that the vector index represents the average number of infected mosquitoes collected per trap night. While the City is divided into quadrants for basic vector index calculations, the calculation is based on the number of traps that mosquitos were collected from and can therefore be scaled to more refined zones by decreasing the number of traps used in the calculation. A minimum of five traps will always be used as this represents the minimum to produce a statistically valid index calculation. Matt is unaware of any specifications from the CDC regarding the size of sample areas, but Chet Moore has advised that adhering to the five-trap minimum will produce a valid index.  Greg and Karen asked who performs the pesticide applications and what the County’s threshold for spraying is. - Matt responded that a contractor is hired either by the City or County and noted that the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment has jurisdiction with regards to the initiation of spraying (The City will not spray without a recommendation from the County). The County’s threshold is based on a vector index of 0.5, and they do not make considerations for human cases. He also noted the complicated nature of determining exactly when to spray; for example, if the City’s threshold for spraying has been met, there are several other environmental factors (i.e. weather, etc.) to consider before determining when the best time to treat will be.  Harry asked if the City has taken a position on consumer products (i.e. backyard foggers, UV lights etc.) and their effectiveness. - Matt stated that such solutions operate on a micro-scale and vary significantly in effectiveness; however, his office would advocate any solution that can reduce mosquito populations in an environmentally sensitive way.  Arsineh, Mark and Jim asked for more information regarding the pesticide used for spraying and its application rates. - Matt stated that the pesticide permethrin is used, which is very effective in small amounts. According to EPA standards, 24 -25 applications can be safely made within a season at the rate that it’s applied in Fort Collins; however, to date, applications have ranged from 1 to 3 per year. It can be used as a topical cream to address human ailments and has been deemed safe for use during pregnancy and on children over the age of two months. It is dangerous to cats at rates of 100mg/kg. Fort Collins use of permethrin is somewhat mosquito-specific in the sense that it is strategically applied to areas with high concentrations of mosquitos at times when they are most active and other insects, such as pollinators, are not active. The application rate used for mosquito spraying is also low enough that larger insects and pollinators should be able to process it without negative effects. In addition, there is an opt-out for businesses (e.g. organic farms) to avoid application to their property during spraying.  Mark and Matt discussed Council’s current position on spraying. In general, Council would like to gain a better understanding of the relationship between vector index, human infection and the effectiveness of adult mosquito treatment; however, this is a complicated issue, as there are numerous environmental variables affecting both mosquito populations and pesticide application. Arsineh moved, and Chris seconded a motion to remove the human case thresholds from the spraying criteria. Motion passed, 7-0-1. 1.7 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Karen moved and Jim seconded a motion to support the reduction of the vector index to 0.5. Motion failed, 3-4-1.  The motion failed due to the Board expressing concern over a lack of data. The Board would like quantifiable data regarding the potential reduction of pesticide use or in human cases associated with the proposed reduced threshold. Mark moved and Vara seconded a motion to maintain an index threshold of 0.75 with the expectation that this year be used as a pilot study to provide more substantial evidence for a decrease in the threshold. Motion passed, 7-1-0. Jim moved to add amendment below to above motion: Jim stated that this issue can be revisited if AQAB members are provided rationale for the reduction in vector index based on EPA risk assessment, CDC guidance, local epidemiology, or vector index and incidence data and other quantitative inputs to decision-making and ecotoxicology impacts. AGENDA ITEM 2: Oil and Gas - Land Use Code Updates The Board continued its discussion regarding a recommendation for proposed updates to the Land Use Code associated with development near oil and gas operations. Mark presented a draft recommendation based on the Board’s previous discussion. Two options within the recommendation required further specification by the Board: Option #1: implement setbacks consistent with those designated in COGCC setbacks (500 ft) between existing development and new oil and gas operations. Option #2: take into consideration the documented health impacts of producing oil and gas operations and, following the leads of some other cities, implement setbacks of 750/1000/1500/2000/2500 feet for new residential development around existing oil and gas ops and 750/1000/1500/2000/2500 for High Occupancy Building Units around existing oil and gas facilities. Mark moved, and Chris seconded a motion to implement setbacks consistent with those recommended by City staff for new oil and gas operations [Option #1 above] Motion passed, 6-2-0. The Board reiterated the reservations that they previously discussed regarding the implementation of setbacks for new residential development around existing oil and gas operations. The primary concerns discussed included the lack of data available to justify setback distances and the specifications associated with alternative compliance options. The consensus is that it will be easier to make a recommendation once the CDPHE health risk assessment on emissions from oil and gas operations has been released in summer of 2018. The Board also discussed the opportunity for changes in setback distances by variance. Rebecca noted that there is currently a process to apply for a variance, stating that all standards in that section of the code are modifiable by the decision-maker based on the criteria that changes cannot be detrimental to the public good, they must be equal or better than the current plan or are nominal or non-consequential. Rebecca cited a recent variance granted (for Waters Edge), which was based on the condition that they plug and abandon the well. Variance compliance and alternative compliance are different mechanisms. 1.7 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Jim moved, and Arsineh seconded the motion to incorporate language into the Board’s recommendation that setbacks from active wells are not eligible for variances. Motion passed, 6-2-0 Mark moved, and Greg seconded the motion to implement the same default setbacks for plugged and abandoned wells as for operating wells [500 feet] Motion passed, 7-1-0 Vara moved, and Mark seconded the motion to prohibit alternative compliance until risks associated with plugged and abandoned wells can be characterized Motion withdrawn  Jim and Cassie discussed the previous motion (which was subsequently withdrawn) to prohibit alternative compliance. Cassie noted that the downside to removing alternative compliance is that there’s no longer an incentive to plug and abandon active wells. It also eliminates the opportunity to obtain test results.  Mark asked for clarification on the rules of plugging and abandoning wells and what the benefits of a developer doing so would be. - Cassie stated that if an operator is done producing from an active well, then they need to plug and abandon the well according to COGCC rules. If a developer encounters a previously plugged and abandoned well, then the testing must be performed for the reduced setback. For a previous development, the developer at Waters Edge initiated a process to plug and abandon active wells on the property for reduced setback. The benefit to the community is that they remove an active, operating well.  Greg and Arsineh discussed the time between plugging and testing, noting that this time frame may have significant effects on the results depending on what’s being tested. For example, ground water moves very slowly, but soil gases move relatively quickly so timing may prove to be significant.  Jim noted that dramatic reductions in setbacks will create a potential for reduced property values in the future; however, the risk incurred at various setback distances was still not clear. - Cassie replied that the well failures documented in literature are not for the same kind of wells present in Fort Collins, so it is difficult to predict changes in property value. We currently have development that preceded the current land use code requirements, with building right up to these old wells.  Greg asked where City Council stands on this issue. - Cassie stated that during the last code change, Council chose to match COGCC specifications. The current proposal would update code to match recent COGCC updates.  The Board discussed concerns with contamination and the involvement of COGCC. Cassie noted that the COGCC has a program to react to orphan well issues, including remediation. Fort Collins has dead oil which must be actively pumped to the surface, so a well failure would not be expected to include spurting oil, etc. It is not clear the exact liability that COGCC would take on with regards to property values, etc. Staff follow up: Cassie will send a revised version of recommendation to Board based on the changes agreed upon at this meeting. Board members should review the recommendation and come back with a clear idea of what they would like to include. AGENDA ITEM 3: City Council Future Committee Meeting on Boards and Commissions 1.7 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) The Board planned to discuss responses to two questions: (1) What works well under the current Boards & Commissions structure and process? (2) What would make Boards & Commissions more effective? This topic was not discussed due to time constraints. Mark has a draft that he will send to the Economic Advisory commission and report back to the AQAB. Board Updates  Mark attended the March Natural Resource Advisory Board meeting; they did not reach a resolution regarding the proposed changes to oil and gas land use codes. They will confer on the issue again at the April meeting. In addition, they discussed the whitewater park.  Mark attended the most recent Bicycle Advisory committee meeting at which limitations on e-bike use on City trails, including in natural areas, was discussed.  Mark had a conversation with someone who recently relocated to Fort Collins regarding forced radon mitigation in Denver.  Matt attended the most recent Transportation Board meeting at which a project to create dedicated bike lanes on West Mulberry was discussed.  Mark and Vara met and discussed the details of the newly-formed Climate Change Subcommittee. Greg has also expressed interest.  Vara reviewed notes from the Planning and Zoning Board; projects for schools were approved, but there’s no change in how the City is approving developments to account for the number of cars at schools. There has been no progress on transportation issues.  Chris informed the Board that Matt Tribby recently accepted a position with Platte River Power Authority, working directly with Chris. He wants to ensure that there are no concerns amongst other Board members about two people serving from PRPA. He’s sensitive to the issue and offered to step down if there is a perceived issue. (Neither City staff nor other Board members expressed concern at this time.)  Mark noted that periodic review forms need to be sent to Christine Macrina to set up a board review. Staff Updates None Future Actions and Agenda Items  5/15/18 – Council meeting on West Nile Virus Program Revisions  6/5/18 – Council meeting on Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates Meeting Adjourned: 9:01 pm Next Meeting: May 21, 2018 ______________________________ Signed by Chair 1.7 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Questions from the AQAB regarding proposed oil and gas facility setbacks in Fort Collins – March 2018 Responses from Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services, 4/13/18 SETBACKS In your presentation, you indicated that a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells would incentivize developers to ensure these wells are properly plugged and abandoned. How big a concern is this? What would be done differently if developers didn’t take responsibility for this? Does the City have an estimate of the number of plugged and abandoned wells (and which specific wells) that would potentially be attractive to development? What about operating wells that would cease production and be plugged? • Within City limits, there are approximately four abandoned wells that would affect future development projects. Other active and abandoned wells are located on sites with pending development applications, previously approved development plans, or previously built neighborhoods • If redevelopment were to occur in existing neighborhoods that contain active or abandoned wells, there would be an incentive for developers to plug and abandon active wells or conduct site sampling around wells that were previously abandoned. • There are other wells (both active and abandoned) outside City limits but within the Growth Management Area that could eventually be annexed into the City and developed or redeveloped. Well locations are available online at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline What evaluation of risk went into the COGCC decision for the 500’ setback, in terms of airborne concentrations of various VOCs and the criteria that it would meet at the boundary, for oil and/or gas production? In other words, how are setback distances chosen? Does the info that Cassie got from the COGCC answer this? • From COGCC staff: “There was no scientific justification for the 500 and 1000 foot setbacks. A main goal if the 2013 setback rulemaking was to reduce nuisance impacts during drilling and completion, noise, dust, light, etc., beef up required mitigation measures when in those kinds of sites, and provide more information to citizens, local governments, surface owner, and Building Unit owners.” What criteria must a child care facility meet to be classified as a High Occupancy Building Unit by the State (for the purpose of setback requirements)? COGCC presentation says “capacity of 5 people or more.” Is that 5 children, or does it include caregivers? • Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 26-6-102(5)): “Child care center” means a facility, by whatever name known, that is maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of five or more children who are eighteen years of age or younger and who are not related to the owner, operator, or manager thereof, whether the facility is operated with or without compensation for such care and with or without stated educational purposes…” 1.7 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 2 Are Thornton's or Longmont’s proposed regulations relevant to what is being considered for Fort Collins? For example, would Fort Collins consider a 750 ft. setback from active wells like Longmont is trying to impose? • Longmont requires a 750’ buffer around active wells and a 150’ buffer around plugged and abandoned wells. Thornton’s recently adopted buffers only apply to new wells, not development near existing wells. Longmont’s code language: o “(A) Proposed occupied buildings shall be 750 feet or more from existing oil and gas wells and production facilities. (B) Platted residential lots, sports fields and playgrounds shall be 750 feet or more, or the maximum distance practicable as determined by the city, from existing oil and gas wells and production facilities. (C) Proposed unoccupied buildings and other structures shall comply with local fire code requirements. (D) Proposed public roads and major above ground utility lines shall be located 150 feet or more from existing oil and gas wells and production facilities.” o “(A)Proposed occupied structures or additions, sports fields or playgrounds shall be located 150 feet or more from existing plugged and abandoned or dry and abandoned oil and gas wells. (B) Proposed unoccupied structures shall be located 50 feet or more from existing plugged and abandoned or dry and abandoned wells. (C) No proposed residential lots shall include any portion of plugged and abandoned or dry and abandoned oil and gas wells.” • Broomfield requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet for residential lots and 500 feet for public or private school buildings. o For plugged and abandoned wells, Broomfield requires a “well maintenance and workover easement” that is a minimum of 50 ft by 100 ft. o Verification required that demonstrates, “that the well or former production site has been remediated of hydrocarbon contamination to background levels.” o No utility lines allowed within 10 ft of a plugged and abandoned well • Berthoud, Frederick and Windsor require buffers between new development and existing wells, which range between 150 and 350 ft. • It is within the City of Fort Collins’ local government authority to adopt buffers around existing wells. The City Council can adopt any buffer distance they deem necessary to protect public health and safety. Are higher setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells required for High Occupancy Building Units? What about Designated Outside Activity Areas and Urban Mitigation Areas? • The proposed 1,000 ft setback for High Occupancy Building Units would apply to both active and abandoned wells, unless an applicant pursued the Alternative Compliance option for an abandoned well. The minimum setback around an abandoned well location would be 150 feet for both residential development and High Occupancy Building Units. 1.7 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 3 Why are alternative compliance buffers exempt from fencing requirements? Does this mean that residents and others can access the area all the way up to the P&A well site? • Under the proposed code changes, plugged and abandoned wells that meet the requirements for a reduced buffer would be exempt from the fencing requirement. This would allow the buffer area to be used for public benefit once it has been determined that no contamination is present on the site (e.g., park space, community gardens, solar arrays). How is disturbed surface estimated for P&A wells to determine oil and gas “location”? Is setback measured from well bore or edge of previous well operations? • The buffer would be measured from the outer edge of the oil and gas location, which is defined (in the proposed code language) as: “(1) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility has disturbed the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both; or (2) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both, and such facility or operations have received all required permits prior to submission of a residential development plan for the construction of dwellings or high occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and gas facility or operations, even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas facility or conduct operations has yet to occur on the site.” • “Oil and gas facility” is defined (in the proposed code language) as: “equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas. This term shall include equipment or improvements associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned, and plugged and abandoned wells.” IMPACTS What is the impact of plug and cap failure in terms of concentrations and risks? What overall impacts were seen in the 7-8% of plugged and abandoned wells that failed? For those that failed, how long did the leakage occur before it was detected, and would monitoring have allowed mitigation to occur early enough to significantly reduce the impacts of the failure? • Failure rates, concentrations, risks, impacts and timelines would be highly variable depending on the characteristics and geology of the field, the age of the well, how it was plugged, and other site-specific conditions. Numerous studies have been conducted related to wellbore integrity and failure rates, though staff has not been able to find any that include information for Colorado oil and gas wells. Failure rates worldwide, based on various studies, range from 1.9% to 75% depending on the location, type of production, age and other factors. • There is a distinction between well barrier failure (a single point of failure that does not lead to a leak) and well integrity failure (failure of multiple barriers that leads to a leak). Well integrity failure is far less common than well barrier failure. • For all Colorado leak incidents that staff is aware of, the leaks have been from gas associated with wells, and the failure in Berthoud was due to impacts from nearby horizontal drilling. Very little gas is associated with the oil produced in Fort Collins, and the oil is not naturally pressurized, as it requires water flooding and pumping to bring water and oil to the surface. 1.7 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 4 Can the City commit to ongoing monitoring of P&A wells to include sampling of groundwater from installed groundwater well by developer, soil sampling and soil gas sampling? You may have answered this last month, but maybe the specific details regarding who performs monitoring and how often should be explained again. • Such a commitment would need to be made by City Council and funding would need to be provided via the biennial budget or another funding mechanism. Such a monitoring program would require additional staff and financial resources. Staff has not explored how ongoing monitoring would be potentially completed by the City of Fort Collins, though the monitoring that is currently occurring in Longmont and planned for Broomfield could be used as models. • Staff plans to propose a budget offer for the 2019-2020 budget that would fund initial site investigation and research for a number of plugged and abandoned wells, but would not include site sampling or ongoing monitoring. How will testing and remediation be accomplished if P&A wells are on private property outside of development site? • It would be the obligation of the developer to work with adjacent property owners to conduct site investigation, sampling and remediation (if needed). If contamination issues are found, remediation resources from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) may also be available. • If adjacent property owners are not cooperative, the decision maker for the project could consider a Modification of Standard depending on site-specific considerations and if it has been determined there is no contamination on the development site itself. CODE What is the appropriate language if the code requirement would be based on a minimum distance that cannot be altered by variance? • The exact language would need to be determined/reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, but would be similar to, “This section shall not be subject to the Modification of Standards procedure described in Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code.” In your initial presentation to the AQAB last year, you indicated that setbacks would be measured from property lines, not property dwellings. Is the proposed code consistent with this? • In the current code measures the buffer to the corner of the nearest occupied dwelling, which is consistent with how COGCC measures buffers for new wells. The AQAB asked staff to consider measurement to the property line instead at their December meeting. • The proposed code changes do not change how the buffers would be measured (still measured to the nearest occupied building) in order to maintain consistency with COGCC and to avoid significantly impacting very large properties (e.g., parks, natural areas, agriculture sites). City code seems to indicate that the buffer area is fenced off so that people cannot enter. Is that correct? If so, is any kind of signage required to indicate he purpose of the fence? • That is correct; the purpose of the fencing is to prevent public access. The code (current and proposed) does not contain language requiring any kind of signage, though public safety or notification signage would be allowed. 1.7 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 5 • Under the proposed code changes, plugged and abandoned wells that meet the requirements for a reduced buffer would be exempt from the fencing requirement. This would allow the buffer area to be used for public benefit (e.g., park space, community gardens, solar arrays). Can you please review the requirements for notification if buildings are within 1000 ft. of P&A well? Is there a way to inform residents of High Occupancy Building Units, since owners may not be on-site? • Currently notification occurs via the recorded subdivision plat for any development sites within 1,000 feet of a well. This information is publically available on the City’s website, but it would be a property owner, resident or tenant’s responsibility to locate the plat. • An additional form of notification is proposed in the updated code changes, which would require information about the well to be included in a covenant for any new properties/buildings within 1,000 feet of the well. This information would appear during a title search during the purchase of a property, and is also information that an owner or resident could look up themselves. • In 2017, the City sent a notification letter to all property owners within 1,000 feet of an existing well. It would be the responsibility of those property owners to notify any residents or tenants that were not directly contacted. Well locations are readily available online at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline Section 3.826(C)(4)(c)(i)(B) says that “such plan may be required to include” five specific items? Why would all five not always be required? Under what condition would some not be required? • An applicant would be required “to demonstrate that the well has been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been adversely impacted by oil and gas operations or facilities.” The exact details of the sampling plan may vary depending on site-specific conditions or new technology that comes available. For example, the COGCC already has exact, known locations for some plugged and abandoned wells, so a site survey and historical research may not be needed. 1.7 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 1 MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD Date: Monday, March 19, 2018 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave. Time: 5:30–8:00pm For Reference Mark Houdashelt, Chair Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398 Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison 970-416-2648 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Matt Tribby Greg Clark Chris Wood Arsineh Hecobian Mark Houdashelt, Chair Karen Artell Harry Edwards Vara Vissa, Vice-Chair Jim Dennison Staff Present Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Guests Kyle Taylor, CSU Student Mason Ismert, CSU Student Mason Mizener, CSU Student Gayla Martinez, Citizen Eric Shenk, Transportation Board Member Call to order: 5:32 pm Public Comments Gayla Martinez stated that she recently attended a Planning and Zoning Board meeting where Rebecca Everette made a presentation on oil and gas code updates in Fort Collins. She expressed appreciation for the City’s efforts to implement stricter regulations on setbacks and believes that the proposed changes are an improvement but are not sufficient considering the potential health effects related to hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas operations. She emphasized the complicated nature of determining safe distances from such operations and expressed concern that plugs may fail in previously developed neighborhoods. She stressed the importance of reevaluating decisions as more data becomes available. Approval of Minutes Chris moved, and Arsineh seconded a motion to approve the February minutes as presented with edits. Motion passed, 8-0-0. 1.7 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: Oil and Gas - Land Use Code Updates Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, presented the results of community outreach and proposed code changes for consideration. This item is scheduled to go before Council on June 5, 2018. She is hoping for a recommendation from the Board.  Currently, Prospect Energy is the only operator within the City and most oil and gas activity is concentrated in the Hearthfire neighborhood in northeast Fort Collins. There are 10 active wells within City limits and 16 within the growth management area. There are 20 abandoned wells within City limits and 30 within the growth management area.  Code changes under consideration include:  Increase buffer requirement for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350’ to 500’. This change is consistent with current state regulations.  Add a buffer requirement of 1000’ for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations including public/private schools, nursing facilities, hospitals, life care institutions, correctional facilities and child care facilities. This change is also consistent with current state regulations.  A reduced setback (minimum 150’) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met (via alternative compliance: o a site survey confirms the well location o confirmation that plugging or re-plugging the well meets current state standards o soil, air and groundwater sampling are performed regularly o installation of permanent monitoring equipment for future use o the area is deemed safe for residential development  Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners  Current COGCC plugging requirements:  “Plugs must permanently prevent migration of oil, gas, water, or other substance from the formation or horizon in which it originally occurred.”  Spaces between cement plugs should be filled with water, mud or other fluids of sufficient density to maintain appropriate pressure levels  Cement plugs must be a minimum of 100’ long and extend at least 100’ above each “zone” to be protected  Cement plug required from surface to 50’ in depth  Permanent markers at surface  Current disclosure includes a radius note on the plat that shows all properties within 1000’ of an existing well. City staff are proposing an additional requirement for a recorded declaration of all properties within 1000’ for future property buyers.  Outreach included:  The City mailed notifications to every property owner within 1000’ of any active or plugged well,  Emailed stakeholders and developers,  Developed an online questionnaire,  Created a City-wide posting on Nextdoor  Offered one-on-ones to residents.  Public Comment  Majority support increased buffer around active wells  Majority concerned about reduced buffers around plugged/abandoned wells, health impacts and long-term failures  Majority agree that additional research and sampling is required Discussion 1.7 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 3  Chris asked what is done with sampling data and if there are certain monitoring standards that must be met for alternative compliance. If sampling results are high, would a reduced setback be allowed?  Rebecca responded that exact techniques/methods are not detailed within codes because technology and data standards change over time. The resolution of the code, as explicitly specified within its purposes and goals, is to adequately protect residences and mitigate any harmful contaminants. If high levels of contaminants or leaks were discovered, they would be reported to the state/COGCC and a reduced buffer would likely be denied unless remediated.  Arsineh noted that it is common for casings to fail over the long-term and enquired whether the City could monitor for such failures over the long-term, especially in soils and water?  At this time the proposed code changes would only requires initial sampling by the developer; no long-term sampling measures are stipulated, nor have they been budgeted for. City Staff has been exploring Longmont’s model; their program conducts initial sampling, followed by subsequent annual monitoring at all wells to check for soil vapor and ground water contamination. The equipment to sample soil and water can be easily installed and the City has already priced such equipment.  Arsineh enquired about the point from which setback distances were measured.  Rebecca responded that setback distances are determined from the overall operation site, including the well bore, the pad and any equipment involved in the operation.  Mark and Rebecca discussed the issue that occurred in Firestone which originated from a cut flowline attached to an active gas well. There may be flowlines coming from abandoned wells in Fort Collins, but if there are, any new development would have to identify those.  Vara enquired whether or not residential child care facilities fall under the high-occupancy designation with regards to the 1000’ setback rule. Staff Follow-Up: Rebecca will clarify how the state defines childcare operations; it likely depends upon how they’re licensed.  Vara asked when these codes would take effect and who they would impact.  Rebecca stated that the new requirements would only apply to new development projects and would be paid for by the developer; the new buffers would not apply to existing structures. Furthermore, the majority of plugged and abandoned wells are already developed, so it’s unlikely that there will be a lot of new development in such areas as there is not much room for infill.  Harry asked if the financial cost/benefits of the proposed code changes have been calculated.  Rebecca provided a cost per site breakdown and stated that there is a high incentive to perform testing to attain the 150’ setback radius; as much as ~16 acres of developable land could be gained by complying with testing and reporting requirements.  Karen asked if the City will require developers to utilize certain companies for testing, and if the City would consider performing the monitoring work themselves.  Rebecca replied that the City cannot endorse a private contractor for any work, but they can review qualifications. She noted that they don’t currently have staff with the expertise to perform ongoing monitoring and that Council would have to approve funding to hire such staff members. This has been discussed.  Matt asked if there is anything written in code that allows it to evolve with state setback changes?  Rebecca responded affirmatively and noted that the language in the new code is meant to be flexible enough to change with COGCC requirements. The City will continue to evaluate this code as more information becomes available.  Matt expressed concern that annual testing may not be frequent enough. Residents could potentially be 1.7 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 4 exposed to harmful emissions for extended periods of time between testing. He asked if the new code would allow customer concerns or complaints to drive more frequent testing at sites that have been approved for a reduced buffer. For example, if residents noticed the emission of a strong odor, would they have the power to force immediate testing (and mitigation)?  Cassie replied that the state would likely respond and ask for sampling at such a time. She went on to note that if a developer encounters a plugged and abandoned well that they were previously unaware of, they must take ownership of it, especially if it was damaged during construction.  Mark asked if Fort Collins has the authority to specify setbacks that surpass the State’s.  Rebecca responded that other local communities have adopted buffer requirements that are higher than the State’s requirements and that Fort Collins could as well, but she noted that it could generate legal challenges from developers.  Mark requested more data regarding failure rates of plugged and abandoned wells and asked who is liable for the resulting safety and air quality impacts.  Rebecca cited a 7-8% failure rate of plugged and abandoned wells based on data from a study in Alberta, Canada.. Longmont has found that chemicals used during remediation have greater impacts on soil and groundwater than well leaks have had; however, there are not currently many studies on this topic.  Jim and Rebecca discussed the setback distances adopted by other cities. Longmont has adopted 750’, Thornton has adopted >1000’, but many communities still don’t require buffers. Jim expressed a desire to see data regarding the effects to air quality and groundwater at each of the proposed setback distances and would like to understand the COGCC and Longmont’s methodology for choosing these distances.  Vara also expressed concerns about mitigation for natural disasters affecting oil and gas infrastructure and area integrity. The Board decided that they are not ready to make an official recommendation at this time. Members would like to know exactly how and why the proposed setback distances have been chosen, what constitutes a well failure, and what the potential health impacts associated with a failure are. CDPHE is currently working on a health risk assessment on emissions from oil and gas operations that will be released in 2018. Rebecca noted that these setback distances can be reevaluated after the study has been released. The Board will make a recommendation at the next meeting after discussing how setback distances are chosen with Rebecca. Staff Follow-Up: Rebecca will provide more information about how setback distances were chosen at the next AQAB meeting. AGENDA ITEM 2: Board Elections Harry moved, and Jim seconded a motion to elect Mark as the Chair for the next term Motion passed, 8-0-0. Mark moved, and Harry seconded a motion to elect Vara as the Vice Chair Motion passed, 8-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 3: Discussion Items Coordination with other committees  The AQAB previously decided to participate in the Economic Advisory Committee project to organize 1.7 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 5 the coordination of multiple Boards for a focused discussion on how to make Boards & Commissions more effective (at least through the Futures Committee meeting in May). Mark has volunteered to attend the Futures Committee planning meeting on 4/2/18. The actual Futures Committee meeting will be held on 5/14/18 and Mark believes that these are open to the public, so any Board member can attend (as an observer); currently, Mark will be speaking on behalf of the AQAB.  As previously discussed, Board members assigned representatives to monitor the agendas, and attend the meetings of 4 relevant Boards:  Transportation Board – Matt (Arsineh as alternate)  Planning & Zoning Board – Vara (Chris as alternate)  Natural Resources Board – Mark (Karen as alternate)  Energy Advisory Board – Arsineh (Harry as alternate)  In addition, Mark will attend Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings (Chris as alternate) Vara will investigate the potential of establishing an online sign-up sheet to foster collaboration and facilitate substitutions when necessary. Climate Change Subcommittee Mark moved, and Chris seconded a motion to create a Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Subcommittee Motion passed, 8-0-0. Vara and Jim volunteered as members of the subcommittee; the exact meeting time is to be decided. Staff Follow-Up: Cassie will clarify the details of operating a subcommittee. Potential BFO Offers for Organic Waste Collection Diverting all organic waste from landfills is part of the City’s 2020 goals but has been put on hold, in part, because there is nowhere within City limits to deposit the waste (regional wasteshed planning is attempting to address this). Mark has drafted a recommendation for the AQAB regarding potential BFO offers for organic waste collection that he’d like to discuss at an upcoming meeting. He would like clarification on how waste will be collected and has proposed the initiation of a pilot program in volunteer communities to work out the details of collecting organic waste from both residences and restaurants. E-Bikes Update Colorado Senate recently passed a bill that will allow bicycles to pass through a stop sign if they slow to at least 15 mph or go straight through a red light if they stop first and there is no traffic. This bill still has to be taken up by the House. It’s unclear how this would affect City code. Bicycle Advisory Committee is likely to send a recommendation to the Transportation Board supporting a trial period for use of e-bikes on paved trails in Fort Collins. If Transportation Board decides to send a recommendation on to City Council, they may ask AQAB for a recommendation as well. Board Updates ● Mark’s edits to the AQAB bylaws are on hold until the Futures Committee meeting is over. ● Mark is awaiting feedback concerning the format of the annual report; he’ll follow up once he’s received it. ● Mark recently attended the initial meeting of the EV Roadmap Steering Committee focused on discovery; attendees were asked for input on the perceived barriers to purchasing EVs. ● 2/28/18 – Karen and Chris attended a talk given by Gina McCarthy at CSU ● 3/5/18 – Mark attended CSU’s Zero Waste Symposium ● 3/19/18 – Karen attended a League of Women Voters meeting 1.7 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Page 6 ● 4/17/18 – City Council adoption of the 2018 Strategic Plan and Income Qualified Assistance Program ● 4/19-20/18 – EPA Region 8 Radon Conference at the Doubletree Hotel in Westminster ● 5/8/18 – Council work session including an update on the Climate Action Plan ● 5/22/18 – Council work session including a review of recommendations from the Regional Wasteshed Project ● 6/5/18 – Council meeting including an update on Oil and Gas Land Use Codes Staff Updates ● N/A Future Actions and Agenda Items ● PRPA Presentation ● Oil and Gas Setback Recommendation ● Regional Waste Diversion ● E-Bikes Meeting Adjourned: 8:09 pm Next Meeting: April 16, 2018 ______________________________ Signed by Chair 1.7 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave. Time: 5:30–8:00 p.m. For Reference Mark Houdashelt, Chair Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398 Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison 970-416-2648 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Arsineh Hecobian None Mark Houdashelt, Chair Harry Edwards Chris Wood Tom Griggs Vara Vissa, Vice-Chair Gregory Miller Jim Dennison Greg Clark Staff Present Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison Guests Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner. Call to Order: 5:35 p.m. Approval of Minutes Tom moved and Harry seconded a motion to approve the October minutes with corrections. Motion passed, 9-0-0. ____________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM 1: Oil and Gas Setbacks Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner presented overview of proposed code changes under consideration relating to setbacks for new development near oil and gas operations. Presentation The City is considering several code changes related to oil and gas development. Current proposals include:  Remove references to the 2013 hydraulic fracturing moratorium.  Increase setback requirements for new development projects near existing, active oil and gas operations from 350 ft. to 500 ft. 1.7 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes)  Reduce setback requirements for new development projects near plugged and abandoned wells from 350 ft. to 100 ft. Fort Collins does not have authority over the permitting or regulating of oil and gas wells; that is done by the State. Fort Collins can determine reciprocal setbacks, which are the distances between new land development and existing oil and gas operations. Current code specifies a 350-ft. buffer for new development. Proposed code change would increase to 500 ft. for active wells to be consistent with the state standards for new wells. A second proposed code change would reduce the reciprocal setback for plugged and abandoned wells to 100 feet. Discussion  Do we keep an inventory of these wells? o The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) keeps maps of wells, but accuracy of older locations is questionable.  What do the 20 known plugged and abandoned wells in Fort Collins look like? o Plugged and abandoned wells look like the surface. They are plugged below the ground with a possible surface marker. They are capped below the surface, usually covered by grass and difficult to identify. Surveyor’s would be able to find, but not totally obvious. States have pulled together documentation and they continue to update this documentation on both active and inactive wells.  Why do the wells in Weld County have a wall around them? o These are sound, light and noise barriers required by the They are required to be 32-ft. barrier walls. The well’s operating hours are curtailed if located near neighborhoods.  What is the meaning behind the 500-foot selected state standards? Would 250 feet make a difference in air quality? o Possibly. Depending upon the site, the reduction of the concentration of an air contaminant can be significant. A health risk assessment is being performed using some of the newer data from a front range study.  There is a school near Greeley. That school building is the distance indicator to the well, with a playground being in between. This makes the distance closer to the individuals, children. Property line indicator seems more beneficial. o The Land Use Code uses the building as the indicator. We have worked with builders to use the property line and are considering changing the code to reflect this as well.  Are wells in clusters or individual? o Fort Collins generally has one well per site. Some new well pads in other communities have upwards of 30 wells.  The 500-ft. setback may be more appropriate for small communities. Has 1,000 ft. been suggested for high occupancy uses (e.g., hospitals, schools, nursing homes)? o This will be considered in the code updates.  Exposures and risks need to be evaluated as concrete will degrade over time. Can we place a requirement for buyers to know what is around them? Press the Developers to notify buyers? Perform their due diligence? o The City currently requires notification on the subdivision plat. However, this may not be the best way to notify future property owners, so staff is exploring alternatives. o Maybe the history of a well should be placed in the property deed, as it passes from owner to owner.  Who is monitoring the abandoned wells? 1.7 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) o Soil and gas monitoring requirements were built in beyond the State’s specifications for the Water’s Edge development. Previous plugged and abandoned wells are not monitored. Longmont is looking into monitoring their plugged and abandoned wells.  What is the schedule for City Council? o This is not on the six-month calendar as yet. Staff are meeting with various boards to take the temperatures from those boards and conducting an online survey and drop-in sessions to gather community input. Once input has been compiled, staff will determine next steps and a timeline for board recommendations and City Council. http://fcgov.com/oilandgas has online survey available and schedule for drop-in conversations with City staff regarding the proposed setback changes. _______________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM 2: Annual Report Mark Houdashelt, chair, led a discussion on the Annual Report. The final report is due by January 31, 2018. This report was sent out to members, consisting of 3 sections. Feedback and suggestions for changes requested for the rough draft. Discussion Board members expressed comments:  Was an Executive summary needed? Would that give the document a higher likelihood of being read by the City Council? o There is usually not a one-paragraph Executive report.  Section 3 shows that this is a very active board.  The annual Report discusses how Board activities address items in the work plan in depth.  All goals have been accomplished for the year.  The 2nd Section of the Annual Report was added with intent of outlining the additional board member meetings and activities outside the scope of regular meeting attendance. The Board discussed various ways to shorten or improve the Annual Report but decided to wait until next year to make any major format changes. The Board chair agreed to seek feedback from the Council Liaison regarding the usefulness of the various types of information presented under the current AQAB Annual Report format. Staff follow-up: Board suggested that a standard template be developed, and Cassie Archuleta offered to look into it. _________________________________________________________________________________ Board Updates  The Board discussed the potential use of E-Bikes on City bike trails. City law is not currently in accordance with new State law. At this time, E-bikes can be ridden on the City trails only if the motor is off or the rider has a disability. Limited research has been performed on E-bikes; primarily related to safety and not air quality. Boulder has allowed E-bikes on their trails. Some have recommended there be speed limits on the trails if E-bikes are allowed there.  Mark brought up discussion regarding the potential for the AQAB to focus more on climate change. He noted that Ross Cunniff suggested that a subcommittee possibly be created to provide more 1.7 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) emphasis on climate change.  The Board discussed the Platte River Power Authority zero net carbon study. Staff follow up: Cassie to contact Platte River to set up a presentation for a future Board meeting. _________________________________________________________________________________ Future Action and Agenda Items  Discuss Radon study and AQAB role.  January meeting will have the introduction of new board members and their roles.  Outdoor residential burning. Meeting Adjourned: 8:11 p.m. Next Meeting: January 22, 2018, due to Martin Luther King Holiday on January 15, 2018 ______________________________ Signed by Chair 1.7 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Meeting Minutes (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 1 Updates to Oil and Gas Buffer Regulations Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner June 19, 2018 City Council Work Session ATTACHMENT 8 1.8 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Questions for Council 1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff recommendation? 2. Is any additional information needed prior to formal Council consideration of the proposed Land Use Code changes? 2 1.8 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Current Oil and Gas Operations Current Operations: • One operator – Prospect Energy • Exclusively oil production (97% water, 3% oil) • No flaring of gas, very low potential for combustion or explosions Existing Wells: • 16 active wells (10 in city limits) • 30 abandoned wells (20 in city limits) Source: http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline (10/1/2017) 3 Well (producing, injecting, shut-in or abandoned) City Limits Fort Collins 1.8 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Oil Extraction in Northeast Fort Collins Producing Injecting Abandoned City Limits Well Status Source: http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline (10/1/2017) 4 HWY 1 DOUGLAS RD TURNBERRY 1.8 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Background • Land Use Code does not regulate: • Siting and permitting of new wells • Oil and gas production / operations • Land Use Code does regulate: • Setback of new development near existing wells (active and abandoned) • Fencing, landscaping and screening measures • Disclosure to future property owners 5 1.8 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Code Changes Under Consideration 1. Increase buffer requirement for residential development near existing oil and gas operations (from 350 ft to 500 ft) 2. Add buffer requirement for “high occupancy building units” near oil and gas operations (1,000 ft) 3. Allow a reduced setback (150 ft min) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met (via alternative compliance) 4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners 6 1.8 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Reciprocal Setbacks / Buffers • State setbacks for new wells: • General development: 500 ft • High Occupancy Building Units: 1,000 ft • Current Fort Collins buffer around existing wells: • Residential development: 350 ft • Proposed code updates to match State: • Residential development: 500 ft • High Occupancy Building Units: 1,000 ft * if State setbacks increase, City buffers would automatically increase to match 7 1.8 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) • Plugged and abandoned wells have been permanently removed from operation • Proposed code update: Allow a reduced buffer (150 ft min) if: • Site survey confirms well location • Confirmation that plugging or re-plugging meets current state standards • Soil, air quality and groundwater sampling • Installation of permanent monitoring equipment for future use • Area deemed safe for residential development 8 Alternative Compliance – Plugged & Abandoned Wells 1.8 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Incentive for Site Sampling / Remediation 9 Buffer Radius Area (ac) Area Gained w/ 150 ft buffer 150 ft 1.6 ac - 500 ft 18.0 ac 16.4 ac 1,000 ft 72.1 ac 70.5 ac • Est. cost for research and sampling: $16,000 • Est. cost for plugging and abandoning a well: $84,000 1.8 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) 10 Example: Montava 1.8 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Disclosure to Future Property Owners • Proposed addition: • Recorded declaration on titles for all properties within 1,000 ft of existing well 11 1.8 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Community Outreach • Mailing to affected property owners • Email to stakeholders and developers • Online questionnaire • Citywide posting on Nextdoor • Drop-in sessions to talk with staff • Discussions with Planning & Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board and Natural Resource Advisory Board • Individual phone calls and emails Over 1,100 people directly contacted 12 1.8 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Board Outreach Board Recommendations Planning & Zoning Board • Support increased buffers and disclosure requirements • Do not support alternative compliance for buffer reductions • Prefer a more case-by-case evaluation Natural Resources Advisory Board • Support increased buffers and disclosure requirements • Recommend measuring buffer to property line and excluding playgrounds/parking lots • Recommend additional monitoring, liability, bonding and repair requirements Air Quality Advisory Board • Support increased buffers and disclosure requirements • Recommend measuring buffer to property line • Recommend additional monitoring and liability requirements • Concern about fencing exemption for abandoned wells • Do not support approval of any variances 13 1.8 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Recommended Modifications • Staff recommends the following modifications to the proposed code: • No parks, playgrounds, recreational fields or public gathering spaces allowed in buffers • Require 5 years of annual monitoring (for plugged and abandoned wells) • Certify that the site is free from contamination and is safe for residential use • Require professional third-party opinion on the safety of a reduced setback • Require remediation of environmental contamination, well repair, or re-plugging if necessary 14 1.8 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Questions for Council 1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff recommendation? 2. Is any additional information needed prior to formal Council consideration of the proposed Land Use Code changes? 15 1.8 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) Recommended Changes 1. Increase buffer requirement for residential development near existing oil and gas operations (from 350 ft to 500 ft) 2. Add buffer requirement for “high occupancy building units” near oil and gas operations (1,000 ft) 3. Allow a reduced setback (150 ft min) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements are met (via alternative compliance) 4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners 5. Additional modifications based on board and public input 16 1.8 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6885 : Oil and Gas Land Use Code Changes) DATE: STAFF: June 19, 2018 Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations within the Land Use Code applicable to larger parcels being developed in multiple phases. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed Land Use Code amendment? 2. Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration at the upcoming adoption hearing? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Goals of the PUD Land Use Code Changes Staff initiated the creation of a PUD Overlay with the following goals: 1. Add flexibility in site design not available in traditional procedures in return for the provision of significant public benefits 2. Allows for land use flexibility beyond the underlying zone district use restrictions 3. Ability for extending vested property rights to land use and density, and modifications to development standards 4. Promotes innovative, high-quality community design 5. Forwards adopted City plans, policies and standards 6. Addresses the unique challenges with large developments constructed in phases Summary of Proposed Changes The following Land Use Code changes are proposed. The full set of changes are included in Attachment 1. LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change 1.3.1 - Establishment of Zone Districts Establishes zone districts Adds Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses Describes the purpose of the Addition of Permitted use process Provides that an APU process may be used to add uses to the zone district underlying the PUD Overlay 1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text Describes Rules of Construction in the Land Use Code Strikes reference to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD). 2.15(C)(2) Describes Review Procedures Adds an additional neighborhood meeting for PUD master plans like the existing APU procedures. 2 Packet Pg. 184 June 19, 2018 Page 2 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use Describes the minor amendment and change of use process pertaining to OPD, PDP’s and any site- specific development plan Includes the PUD Master Plan in the list of amendable plan types. 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse Defines the time limits for development plan applications Adds provisions for the vesting of property rights with respect to uses, densities, and development and engineering standards for which variances have been granted. Defines the duration and frequency of vested rights extension requests associated with a PUD Master Plan 2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures Defines steps in the Project Development Plan (PDP) review process Expands the application of development standards to the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan. 2.15 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Review Procedure Presently occupied by former Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Existing section is repealed and a new procedure for development occurring within a PUD Overlay is created that defines applicable steps in the development review process. 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Presently occupied by former Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Creates the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan standards for uses, modification to densities and development standards, vesting of PUD Master Plans, and Engineering variances. 5.1.2 - Definitions Adds definitions for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. *LCUASS Chapter 1, Section 1.9.4.A.a will be amended in a separate action that allows LCUASS variances to be processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan. BACKGROUND June 19, 2018 Page 3 vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering standards. The PUD Master Plan does not expire, but can be terminated or amended through processes specified in the Land Use Code. Major components of a PUD Master Plan application include the following: • list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested • overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses • transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation • location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for preservation • architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design intent • phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase • list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan The decisionmaker for the PUD Master Plan action is dictated by the size of the development. For parcels 640 acres or greater, the City Council makes the decision whether to approve the Master Plan, while parcels of a lesser size are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The 640 acre threshold for City Council review is consistent with the existing ‘legislative’ zoning or rezoning process per Section 2.9.4(H)(1). Master Plan Followed by Project Development Plans (PDP’s) After the PUD Master Plan has been approved, each subsequent phase would be reviewed under the existing Project Development Plan (PDP) and Final Plan processes. PDP applications would be evaluated for consistency and substantial conformance with the PUD Master Plan. In cases where land uses, densities, and modifications to Article 3 design standards and engineering standards, such as the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS,) have been approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, the granted modifications/variances correspond to the PDP approval and no additional modifications or variances would be required. Minimum Size Threshold for PUD’s Under the proposed ordinance, parcels must be a minimum of 20 acres in size to qualify for a PUD Overlay, with the intention that this shift in regulations only apply to larger, multi-phased development. Based on staff’s property analysis, a total of eighty-eight (88) properties would be eligible, along with a handful of additional properties that could potentially be consolidated to reach the minimum size threshold. Given the wide range of minimum threshold acreages, staff conducted a thorough analysis of potentially eligible properties (Attachment 2) to arrive at the 20-acre minimum. Vacant or underdeveloped properties with lot area between 20 and 50 acres in size were evaluated. As can be seen through the data below, the size and distribution of eligible properties has an almost linear progression based on their size. Parcels of 50 acres or more are concentrated in the Mountain Vista Subarea, in the east and southeast areas of the community, and south of East Prospect Road, with one lone parcel north of Highway 287 west of Shields Street. Reducing the eligible parcel size to 20 acres expands the opportunity for PUD’s to be created in the northwest subarea, to the southeast, southwest, and parcels at the perimeter of the East Mulberry Corridor. 2 Packet Pg. 186 June 19, 2018 Page 4 A twenty (20) acre minimum size is also consistent with historic parcel sizes and other acreage thresholds within the Land Use Code. Twenty-acre parcels are often the result of the 640-acre (1 square mile) section grid, which is frequently further subdivided into 160-acre quarter sections, 40-acre quarter-quarter sections and splits of those 40-acre parcels into 20 acres. Further, the mix of housing standards within the LMN zone district trigger a minimum of three (3) housing types at the 20-acre threshold. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements Development procedures for the PUD process match the 12 steps identified in Article 2, ranging from the initial pre-application meeting (conceptual or preliminary design review) through the appeal process except for the neighborhood meeting step. This noteworthy procedural difference includes a mandatory second neighborhood meeting that matches requirements for the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process. Under the proposed ordinance, applicants would be required to conduct two neighborhood meetings: the first held meeting prior to the application submittal, and then a follow-up neighborhood meeting after the initial round of development review has been completed. This second meeting affords potentially affected property owners the ability to comment on revised development concepts early enough in the process to positively contribute to the project’s design. Review of Public Benefits Since it is virtually impossible to anticipate and quantify the range of all impacts associated with a PUD development application, staff has been hesitant to propose specific PUD performance metrics, e.g.-a “points system”. Alternatively, the proposed draft PUD ordinance includes specific objectives that test the project’s public benefits against more conventional development. The decisionmaker would use the following objectives as the basis of its action on a PUD Master Plan: 1. The project must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable: a) Diversification in the use of land; b) Innovation in development; c) More efficient use of land and energy; d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. 2 Packet Pg. 187 June 19, 2018 Page 5 2. Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. 3. Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. 4. Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. Community Engagement Feedback was gathered on the proposed code changes through direct correspondence with members of the Fort Collins development community. Multiple comments were received, some through email and telephone and two were through written summaries (Attachment 3). Concerns raised during the public process principally centered on three categories: 1. The minimum parcel size threshold 2. Lack of definition of “significant public benefit” 3. Term of vested property rights With respect to the parcel size, all but one of the commenters voiced opposition to the 50-acre minimum parcel threshold and requested that a lesser minimum be considered. Suggested alternative size thresholds varied from no minimum size to 25 acres and to several points in between. The common concern was that the community’s supply of parcels meeting the threshold is so small that few can take advantage of the flexibility afforded through the PUD process. An underlying principle of the PUD ordinance is a balance between granted regulatory flexibility and amenities with improvements that benefit the public. Some commenters have stated the “significant public benefit” criterion is too broad and should either be more narrowly defined or eliminated in its entirety. The proposed term of vested property rights for PUD Master Plans has been drafted to be consistent with rights granted under other entitlement processes. The draft standards provide for a three (3) year vesting period, with two (2) additional one (1) year extensions granted by the Director, and with additional one (1) year extensions available through action of the original decisionmaker (City Council or Planning and Zoning Board depending upon the project scale). Concern has been raised by some that the vesting period should be lengthened given the scale and complexity often found in PUD’s. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the draft PUD ordinance at its May 31, 2018 hearing (Attachment 4) and elected to continue the item. While the Planning and Zoning Board expressed general support for the PUD concept and draft code language, additional information was requested for presentation at the Planning and Zoning Board Work Session scheduled for June 19 and the subsequent public hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. PUD Land Use Code Amendments (PDF) 2. Buildable Land for PUDs (PDF) 3. PUD Code Public Comments (PDF) 4. Planning and Zoning Minutes, May 31, 2018 (PDF) 5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 188 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1.3.1 - Establishment of Zone Districts In order to carry out the purposes of this Code, the City is hereby divided into the following zone districts: Rural Lands District (R-U-L) Urban Estate District (U-E) Residential Foothills District (R-F) Low Density Residential District (R-L) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N) Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N) Transition District (T) Public Open Lands District (P-O-L) River Conservation District (R-C) Downtown District (D) River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R) Community Commercial District (C-C) Service Commercial District (C-S) Community Commercial - Poudre River District (C-C-R) General Commercial District (C-G) Community Commercial - North College District (C-C-N) Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) Limited Commercial District (C-L) Harmony Corridor District (H-C) Employment District (E) Industrial District (I) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (A) Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use. Under this process, an applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. For residential neighborhoods, land use flexibility shall be balanced with the existing residential character. Projects are expected to continue to meet the objectives of any applicable sub-area plan and City Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. The Addition of Permitted Use process may add a use or uses to the zone district underlying a PUD Overlay but may not be utilized to add a use or uses to any PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district. (B) Applicability. This Section is applicable only under the following circumstances: (1) Where the proposed use is not listed as a permitted use in any zone district, does not fall within any existing use classification and is proposed as being appropriate to be added to the permitted uses in the zone district. If approved under this Section, such use shall be considered for inclusion into the zone district pursuant to Division 2.9; or (2) Where the proposed use is listed as a permitted use in one (1) or more zone district(s) and is proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development plan. (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added and with any uses permitted in a PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district. 2.1 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. (2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project not located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for approval of an addition of permitted use for uses described in subsection (B)(2) to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The addition of a permitted use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below. (3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project located, in whole or in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application for the approval of an addition of permitted use shall be determined by the City Council after a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on the addition of permitted use. The Planning and Zoning Board shall remain the decision maker on the primary application. (a) The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(2) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The Planning and Zoning Board shall consider only the requirements set forth in this subsection in making a recommendation on the addition of permitted use and shall follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established for zonings and rezonings of areas of no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code. (b) In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and in determining whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council shall follow the notice requirements for Council action that are established for zonings and rezonings of areas of no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code and shall follow the applicable hearing procedures established by the City Council by resolution for such hearings. In determining the addition of permitted use, the City Council shall consider only the requirements set forth in subsection (c) below. (c) In deciding the addition of permitted use application for uses described in subsection (B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In deciding the addition of permitted use application for uses described in subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in 2.1 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The City Council's action on the addition of permitted use shall be by ordinance. The addition of a permitted use by City Council shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D). The City Council's decision on the addition of permitted use shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. (d) If the addition of permitted use is denied, any primary application that has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon the City Council's approval of an additional permitted use under this Section shall be automatically terminated and made null if such condition is not met; and any pending appeal of such conditional approval shall also be automatically terminated if such condition is not met, whereupon the appellant shall be promptly refunded any appeal fee that was paid to the City. (D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Code, at the first convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under subsection (C)(1) above. (E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), may impose such conditions and requirements, including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size and design on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses. (F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section are specific to the subject addition of permitted use application. Any changes to the use or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use. (G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City Council shall make all final determinations regarding any addition of permitted use under subsection (C)(3) with respect to a project located, in whole or in part, in any of the following zone districts: 1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L) 2. Urban Estate District (U-E) 3. Residential Foothills District (R-F) 4. Low Density Residential District (R-L) 5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) 6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) 7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) 8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). 2.1 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text In construing the language of this Land Use Code, the rules set forth in Section 1-2 of the City Code and this Section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Council as expressed in this Land Use Code or in City Plan Principles and Policies. The rules of construction and definitions set forth herein shall not be applied to any express provisions excluding such construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. In the event of a conflict between these rules of construction and the rules of construction established in Section 1-2 of the City Code, these rules shall control. (A) Generally. All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in the Land Use Code shall be so construed in order that the intent and meaning of the Council may be fully carried out. Terms used in the Land Use Code, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall have the meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms. In the interpretation and application of any provision of the Land Use Code, such provision shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of the Land Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less stringent. The definitions are intended to be generally construed within the context of the Land Use Code, except as shall be specified by the term itself within a given context for a select section of the Land Use Code. (B) Text. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of the Land Use Code and any figure or diagram, the text shall control. (C) Conjunctive/Disjunctive. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, the following words shall be interpreted as follows: (1) "And" indicates that all connected words or provisions apply. (2) "Or" or "and/or" indicates that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in any combination. (3) "Either...or" indicates that the connected words or provisions apply singly but not in combination. (D) Day. The word "day" shall mean a calendar day. (E) Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the Director or some other City officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed as authorizing the Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize professional-level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development applications eligible for Type 1 review, in addition to or in substitution for delegation to subordinates as above authorized, the Director may engage the services of an attorney with experience in land use matters. (F) Exhibits. Any exhibit to this Code which is taken from another regulation of the City shall be automatically amended upon the making of any amendment to the document of origin, and the Director shall promptly replace such exhibit with the new amended exhibit. (G) Include. The word "including," "includes," "such as," "additional" or "supplemental" is illustrative and is not intended as an exhaustive listing, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. 2.1 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (H) Headings. Article, division, section and subsection headings contained in the Land Use Code are for convenience only and do not govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of any portion of the Land Use Code. (I) Shall, May, Should. The word "shall," "will" or "must" is mandatory; "may" is permissive, "should" is suggestive but not mandatory. (J) Week. The word "week" shall be construed to mean seven (7) calendar days. (K) Written or In Writing. The term "written" or "in writing" shall be construed to include any representation of words, letters or figures whether by printing or other form or method of writing. (L) Year. The word "year" shall mean a calendar year, unless a fiscal year is indicated or three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days is indicated. (M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References . In applying the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Code, the term "project development plan" shall be deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term "final plan" shall be deemed to mean a complete development plan. This Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation. 2.1 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2), may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, sSuch minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and are consistent with the existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: (1) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use-by-right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a) Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units, except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less; (b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; (c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; (d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development; (e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan; (f) Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the requirements of this Code; and (g) In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code. (2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law) or City Council review of a PUD Overlay, or any change of use of any property that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a) Results in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units; 2.1 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; (c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; (d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development; and (e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan. (3) Waiver of Development Standards for Changes of Use. (a) Applicability. The procedure and standards contained in this Section shall apply only to changes of use reviewed pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) of this Code. (b) Purpose. In order for a change of use to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), the change of use must result in the site being brought into compliance with all applicable general development and zone district standards to the extent reasonably feasible. The purpose of this Section is to allow certain changes of use that do not comply with all general development standards to the extent reasonably feasible to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) in order to: 1. Foster the economic feasibility for the use, maintenance and improvement of certain legally constructed buildings and sites which do not comply with certain Land Use Code General Development Standards provided that: a. Existing blight conditions have been ameliorated; and b. Public and private improvements are made that address essential health and life safety issues that are present on-site. 2. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, uses and sites. (c) Review by Director. As part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) for a proposed change of use, the Director may waive, or waive with conditions, any of the development standards set forth in subsection (d) below. In order for the Director to waive, or waive with conditions, any such development standard, the Director must find that such waiver or waiver with conditions would not be detrimental to the public good and that each of the following is satisfied: 1. The site for which the waiver or waiver with conditions is granted satisfies the policies of the applicable Council adopted subarea, corridor or neighborhood plan within which the site is located; 2. The proposed use will function without significant adverse impact upon adjacent properties and the district within which it is located in consideration of the waiver or waiver with conditions; 3. Existing blight conditions on the site are addressed through site clean-up, maintenance, screening, landscaping or some combination thereof; and 4. The site design addresses essential health and public safety concerns found on the site. (d) Eligible Development Standards. The Director may grant a waiver or waiver with conditions for the following general development standards: 1. Sections 3.2.1(4), (5) and (6) related to Parking Lot Perimeter and Interior Landscaping, and connecting walkways. 2. Section 3.2.2(M) Landscaping Coverage. 2.1 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 3. Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting, except compliance with minimum footcandle levels described in 3.2.4(C). 4. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosure design. 5. Section 3.3.5 Engineering Design standards related to water quality standard, including Low Impact Development. (4) Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the decision maker who approved the development plan proposed to be amendedAdministrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision maker’s decisionof the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or 2.15 as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. City Council approval of a minor amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. (5) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A). (1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, or any site specific development plan, and changes of use that are not determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. City Council approval of a major amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. Any partial or total abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. 2.1 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (2) Appeals. Appeals of decisions for approval, approval with conditions or denial of major amendments, or abandonment, of any approved development plan or site specific development plan shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (C) Additional Criteria. In addition to the criteria established in (A) and (B) above, the criteria established in subsection 2.1.4(C) shall guide the decision maker in determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for partial or total abandonment. (D) Parkway Landscaping Amendments. Amendments to parkway landscaping in any approved development plan may be approved, approved with conditions or denied administratively by the Director. No public hearing need be held on an application for a parkway landscaping amendment. Such amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards, Appendix C, Section 6.1 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of parkway landscaping amendments of any approved development plan shall be made in accordance with paragraph (A)(4) of this Section. 2.1 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse (A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing one-hundred- eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length, and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code. On transfer of ownership of any real property that is the subject of a pending application, whether in whole or in part, such transfer shall bar a new owner or transferee from taking further action on such application unless, prior to taking any action, the new owner provides evidence satisfactory to the Director that the transferor of such property intended that all rights of the owner under the pending application be assigned to the transferee. (B) Overall Development Plan. There is no time limit for action on an overall development plan. Because an overall development plan is only conceptual in nature, no vested rights shall ever attach to an overall development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, project development plans or final plans for portions of an overall development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the overall development plan which have not received such approvals and have not been completed. (C) PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan shall be eligible for a vested property right solely with respect to uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), as all are set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan, and an approved PUD Master Plan shall be considered a site specific development plan solely for the purpose of acquiring such vested property right. (1) Specification of Uses, Densities, Development Standards, and Engineering Standards. The application for a PUD Master Plan shall specify the uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards granted variances pursuant to Section 4.29(L), for which the applicant is requesting a vested property right. Such uses, densities, and development standards may include those granted modifications pursuant to Section 4.29 and uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code which are applicable to the PUD Master Plan. (2) Term of Vested Right. The term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all phases of the development and the associated engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the overall size of the development and economic cycles and market conditions. Council shall adopt any such development agreement as a legislative act subject to referendum. (3) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development 2.1 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the original PUD Master Plan decision maker, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the original PUD Master Plan decision maker. (4) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing the PUD Master Plan and stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, not later than fourteen (14) days after the approval of a PUD Master Plan, an extension of an existing vested right, or the legislative adoption of a development agreement as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter. (5) Minor and Major Amendments. In the event that a minor or major amendment to a PUD Master Plan is approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10, and such amendment alters or adds uses, densities, development standards, or Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), a new vested property right may be created upon the applicant’s request and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. If the applicant wants the term of the new vested property right to exceed three years, such extended term must be approved and legislatively adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. (DC) Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and upon the expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development plan within three (3) years unless the project development plan is for a large base industry to be constructed in phases, in which case the application for approval of a final plan must be submitted within twenty-five (25) years. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing requirement, which extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall ever attach to a project development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan which have not received such final plan approval and have not been completed. (ED) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans. (1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the recording by the City with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder of both the Final Plat and the Development Agreement and upon such recording, a vested property right shall be created pursuant to the provisions of Article 68 Title 24, C.R.S., and this Section 2.2.11. (2) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing generally the type and intensity of use approved and the specific parcel or parcels affected, and stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once, not later than fourteen (14) days after the approval of any final plan or other site specific development plan in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter. 2.1 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the approval of a final plan or other site specific development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of time shall constitute the "term of the vested property right." The foregoing term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City only if the subject development constitutes a "large base industry" as defined in Article 5, or if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development, economic cycles and market conditions. Any such development agreement shall be adopted as a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure to undertake and complete such engineering improvements within the term of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested property right and shall require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to be processed as required by this Code. All dedications as contained on the final plat shall remain valid unless vacated in accordance with law. (4) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. (5) Minor Amendments. In the event that minor amendments to a final plan or other site-specific development plan are approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible), the effective date of such minor amendments, for purposes of duration of a vested property right, shall be the date of the approval of the original final plan or other site-specific development plan. (6) Major Amendments. The approval of major amendments to a final plan or other site-specific development plan under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible), shall create a new vested property right with effective period and term as provided herein, unless expressly stated otherwise in the decision approving such major amendment. (7) Planning over old plans. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which includes all of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such new final plan shall cause the automatic expiration of such previously approved site-specific development plan. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which includes only a portion of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such new final plan shall be deemed to constitute the abandonment of such portion of the previously approved plan as is covered by such new plan, and shall be reviewed according to the abandonment criteria contained in subsection 2.1.4(C) and all other applicable criteria of this Code. 2.1 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (8) Other provisions unaffected. Approval of a final plan or other site-specific development plan shall not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any other provisions of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property. (9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the subject of another overall development plan or project development plan application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the new plan includes substantial changes in land use, residential density and/or nonresidential intensity. (10) Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create any vested property right other than such right as is established pursuant to the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S. In the event of the repeal of said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the provisions hereof no longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the waiver of a vested property right pursuant to mutual agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the recording of any such agreement with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, any property right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to be not vested. 2.1 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures A project 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: (A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable, only if the project development plan is not subject to an overall development plan. (B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. (C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for project development plans as described in the development application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (D) Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable. (E) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (F) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1) Administrative review (Type 1 review) applies to a project development plan that satisfies all of the following conditions: (a) it was submitted after the effective date of this Land Use Code and is subject to the provisions of this Land Use Code; and (b) it contains only permitted uses subject to administrative review as listed in the zone district (set forth in Article 4, District Standards) in which it is located. (2) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to a project development plan that does not satisfy all of the conditions in (1), above. Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11. (I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. (L) Step 1 2 (Appeals): Applicable. 2.1 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay shall mean an area of land approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for development of an area within an approved PUD Overlay, which identifies the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to vested property rights regarding specific uses, densities, Land Use Code development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). 2.1 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1 Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure (A) Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return for significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures. (B) Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Overlay is available to properties of 50 20 acres or greater in size. (C) Process. (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable to any proposed PUD Overlay subject to Planning and Zoning Board or City Council review. If a neighborhood meeting is required at the conceptual planning stage pursuant to Section 2.2.2, a second neighborhood meeting shall be required after the PUD Overlay application has been submitted and the first round of staff review completed. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents as described in the development application submittal master list for a PUD Overlay shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD Overlay applications between 50 20 and 640 acres; (2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning 2.1 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 2 Board recommendation. City Council approval of a PUD Overlay shall be by ordinance. Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD Overlay between 50 20 and 640 acres is appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project Development Plans within PUD Overlays are subject to the limitations of Section 4.29(J). 2.1 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 3 Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay (A) Purpose. (1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay. (3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. (5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. (B) Objectives. (1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: (a) Diversification in the use of land; (b) Innovation in development; (c) More efficient use of land and energy; (d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; (e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and (f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. (3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. 2.1 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 4 (5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. (C) Applicability. (1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 20 acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners authorize their respective property to be included. (2) An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure. (1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the Section 2.15 of the common review procedures. (2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria: (a) The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within the subject property or properties; (c) The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; (d) The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and (e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant 2.1 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 5 to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (E) Permitted Uses. (1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD Overlay. (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be contrary to the public good. (a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and (b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay. (d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. (F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited. (G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards. 2.1 Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 6 (1) Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set forth in Division 2.8. (2) The application must enumerate the densities and development standards proposed to be modified. (a) The application shall describe the minimum and maximum densities for permitted residential uses. (b) The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Modifications under this Section may not be granted for Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection (L). (3) In order to approve requested density or development standard modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria: (a) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the purposes, and advance the objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The modified density or development standard significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; (c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; and (d) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. 2.1 Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 7 (H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I) and (J). (I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment. (1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following: (i) The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD Overlay; or (ii) The City, provided no vested property right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect upon termination. (b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a public hearing to address the issue. (c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall control. (d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following: (i) The written request of all real property owners within the PUD Overlay; or (ii) The written request of the original applicant for the approved PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met: (1) The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and (2) The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan without the consent of other owners of real property within 2.1 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 8 the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or (iii) The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify, or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right. (b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real property within the PUD Overlay which: (i) Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan; (ii) Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan; or (iii) Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the City. (J) Appeals. (1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal. (K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C), the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances 2.1 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 9 from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three year period specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor. (L) Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban Street Standards, may be processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan pursuant to the applicable variance procedures provided that such procedures allow for the processing of variances in connection with a PUD Master Plan. Variances approved in connection with a PUD Master Plan shall be applicable to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan provided that such variances have been approved prior to the approval of the PUD Master Plan and are incorporated into the PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the PUD Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any approved variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may also be processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final Plan submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan. 2.1 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: PUD Land Use Code Amendments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) 50 Acres 45 Acres 40 Acres 35 Acres 30 Acres 25 Acres 20 Acres Growth Management Area Boundary City Limits - Area PUD Buildable Land Analysis Qualifying Properties ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Buildable Land for PUDs (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) May 29, 2018 Dear P&Z Board Members, This letter concerns the agenda item “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment” for your May 31 st Regular Hearing. I strongly urge you to include two neighborhood meeting in the Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure; with at least one occurring after “uses, modifications to densities and development standards” have been explicitly stated. The development community is being given “…flexibility in site design in return for significant benefits…”; the neighborhood residents should have ample opportunity to understand exactly what flexibility is being given in return for what significant benefits. For most concerned neighborhood residents this will be their first encounter with the land use code and development process, understanding of them is a daunting undertaking that takes time. Sincerely Paul Patterson 2936 Eindborough Fort Collins, CO 80525 ATTACHMENT 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Post Modern Development, Inc. April 30, 2018 Cameron Gloss, AICP Planning Manager City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 cgloss@fcgove.com Re: Comments to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Overlay Draft Dear Cameron, This letter summarizes Post Modern Development (“PMD”) and Terra Development Group’s (“Terra”) initial comments to the draft text of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District that you circulated on April 19, 2018. We appreciate you sharing the proposed PUD draft with us, and we believe that having a PUD District available in Fort Collins will help encourage high quality and creative projects not currently allowed in standard zone districts. However, as an active developer of residential and mixed-use projects, we do have several concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed draft language, which are detailed below. 1. Division 2.15(B) – Minimum Size Requirement. The applicability of the PUD only to properties of 50 acres or larger greatly limits its use and function. We only know of a handful of parcels or possible assemblages within the City’s boundaries that are this large. As a result, the benefits of the PUD’s flexibility will only be available to certain pockets within the community – this result is contrary to the City’s goal of creating significant public benefits through PUD Districts. As an alternative, we would suggest the size limit be changed to 20 acres. A smaller size requirement would give more projects the option of taking advantage of the PUD planning mechanism. This is consistent with the standard practices of other Colorado communities. For example, PUD Districts in the Cities of Loveland and Centennial can apply to property of any size. In Denver, the minimum PUD size is 10 acres. The 20-acre threshold, will make this tool more useful for phased projects, developers and the City to apply within Fort Collins. 2. Division 4.29(B)(2) – Objectives. The requirement that development under a PUD District must provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through a standard zone district is likely to have a chilling effect on their use. We are concerned that the additional flexibility in site design will not provide enough of an incentive to overcome the additional costs created by this requirement. Many developers will see this requirement as a carte blanche for the City to circumvent traditional rational nexus/rough proportionality analyses and request – or even demand – unlimited or disproportionate concessions and public improvements. We suggest the City consider eliminating this requirement. In the event that you choose to keep the enumerated list of 2.3 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) public benefits, we request that some objective criteria and additional detail be added so that developers are given guidance as to whether their project meets this standard and qualifies for PUD District prior to going through the time and expense to apply and appear before the Planning and Zoning Board for a determination. This requirement also presumes that the increased creativity and improved design afforded by a PUD framework is not, in itself, public benefit to justify the use of this tool. 3. Division 4.29 (E) – Uses. In the case of certain zoning districts within the City, there exist allocations of certain primary or secondary uses as percentages of areas or parcels. In order to facilitate the flexibility of uses (which is a stated purpose of the PUD), we would suggest additional clarification within the PUD language that these allocations of percentage of uses within the underlying zone district do not apply to a PUD. 4. Division 4.29(G)(6) – Term of Vested Rights. The mandated expiration of vested rights related to the uses, densities and modified development standards under a PUD Master Plan should be removed. This concept conflicts with the City’s existing rules on the term of vested property rights, which currently say that an extension may be granted without expiration, provided that the City and developer enter into a development agreement. In addition, removing this limitation is consistent with the practices of many peer cities, including Boulder and Broomfield, and is allowed by the Colorado vested rights statute. If the expiration concept is not removed altogether, it would be more beneficial if the initial vested rights period could be extended by multiple additional ten-year extensions, rather than one-year extensions. As a master developer, PMD and Terra know firsthand that large developments can take years, or even decades, to complete, particularly when economic and market cycles fluctuate. Investors, lenders, and tenants rely on vested rights in making their decisions to participate in a project in early stages, relying on the vested right to guarantee that the project can be completed according to its approved development plans throughout its later stages. It is of critical importance that vested rights period realistically match the projected pace of development. Because there is no limit on the length of time for a vested right that can be negotiated in a development agreement for other developments not using a PUD, this provision places PUD projects at a disadvantage relative to other types of projects in the City. Developers might elect to avoid using the PUD process, even if it is the most suitable for a project, if they cannot obtain a vested right that will accommodate the entire anticipated phasing of a project’s development. 5. Division 4.29(I)(1) – Expiration. Incorporating an automatic 20-year expiration date into all PUD Master Plans creates uncertainty and adds complexity to the regulatory process. Again, by their very nature, projects seeking to use the PUD District process are likely more complex, and will likely have lengthier phasing of development, compared to other types of projects. As proposed, a developer could plan a large community around the flexible uses and site design offered by the PUD District, only to have that expire prior to the project being completed. The proposed mechanisms to extend the life of the PUD are either (i) upon the request of all of the property owners with the PUD District, or (ii) upon the request of those property owners whose real property interest are affected. Both of these options create uncertainty that a developer or the City would be able to extend the PUD if needed or desired. In the case of a large development, approval by all property owners would be a very difficult bar to reach. By the time expiration becomes an issue, dozens or even hundreds of parties could have ownership interests in the property within the PUD. This could include a mix of homeowners, commercial property owners, governmental entities such as metro districts, and others. Coordinating them all would be virtually impossible. Even in the event that coordination of affected property owners is solely required, that will still likely be infeasible. In all cases under these mechanisms it would be impossible for a developer to know with certainty that he can meet these thresholds. 2.3 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) If a PUD expires for all or a portion of the PUD District, it would likely create additional problems for property owners and the City in the form of nonconforming structures, standards and/or uses. These issues would extend to not only affect the developers, but tenants, lenders or insurers on the property. We would request that the expiration be eliminated so that a PUD would solely expire upon the request of the property owners. 6. Division 4.29(I)(2) – Amendment. The requirement that all owners or all directly affected owners of property within a PUD approve of any amendment will greatly limit the ability and interest to utilize the PUD. Since a PUD applies to larger developments that will likely phase over time, we would envision numerous revisions requested as a PUD area is developed. As properties are sold and property owners are added within the PUD, a developer will be uncertain that these thresholds for amendment can be met. The result is that these mechanisms significantly decrease the interest of developers to utilize the PUD as future flexibility for amendment may be limited. We do not believe the current approaches are flexible enough. In the case where a master developer needs to change provisions of the PUD Master Plan to accommodate ongoing development of a project, we believe it should be specifically be allowed. We suggest adding that an amendment may be proposed by either a) the majority property owner within the PUD, or b) any property owner within the PUD with the consent of all adjacent property owners within the PUD District. We would also request that such amendment process be handled as a minor amendment process via the City planning department. We appreciate your ongoing work on this matter and the opportunity to comment on this draft regulation. Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, JD Padilla Post Modern Development Roni Amid Terra Development Group Tal Hackmey Terra Development Group Jacob Steele Terra Development Group 2.3 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Master Plan Review Procedure A. Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners to achieve flexibility in site design and the security of extended vesting of rights in return for significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures. Define what the areas of community benefit could be with a grading system for economic development, energy and land conservation, social and artistic values, affordability and others. B. Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Master Plan is available to properties of 50 this is too large as there are no 50 acre sites left within the GMA, therefore it should be 5 -10 acre site minimal with a qualifier for even smaller infill sites where appropriate. The entitlement cost are the same for 5,10 acres or 50 acres or greater in size. The motivation for a community benefit and need for flexibility is greater for a smaller infill site than would be for a 50 acre greenfield site. C.Process. (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. It would great if the staff would actually conceptualize ideas that would result in a better community project instead of just quoting permit cost that are irrelevant at this early stage. (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. There could be a reward to development projects that do the design charrette process instead of just a small meeting giving notice to the 2.3 Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) community of a pending project. The design charrette engages the community to gather real input that can be useful and it cost more to put together. If the developer holds a design charrette it would be great to reward the project with less submittal requirements as it takes a lot of effort to flush out area issues and solutions which is really the purpose of a high submittal requirement standards. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents as described in the development application DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION submittal master list shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. Need Flexibility with staff initiated changes if it will make a better project with a better community benefit. (4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD applications between 10 and 640 acres; (2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD applications greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. This process should be available to used by the local small builders and developers as the 50 acre minimal standard only helps the Wall Street type builder developer. 2.3 Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to Section 4.29(G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Not applicable. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific development plan and does not qualify for vested property rights pursuant to Section 2.2.11. PUD vested property rights for uses, densities, and modifications to development standards expressly identified as vested within a PUD Master Plan are permitted exclusively pursuant to Section 4.29(G), in substitution of the procedures of Section 2.2.11. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (13) Optional Step A (Optional Preapplication Review): Applicants for review of a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres are allowed to participate in the following optional review procedure: This optional review is available to applicants that have completed their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting but have not submitted a development application. Such review is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about the 2.3 Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) ways in which they intend to respond to site constraints, issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development project. Applicants participating in such review procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and the affected property owners. All preapplication sessions under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of the record of any subsequent PUD Master Plan review related to all or part of the property that was the subject of the optional review. Only (1) optional review session may be requested for any proposed PUD Master Plan. Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (A)Purpose. (1) Serves as a review procedure for subsequent Project Development Plans for a large development area governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2) Substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan as to property within an approved PUD Master Plan. (3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4) May provide vesting of uses, density and certain development 2.3 Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) standards to the extent expressly set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan. (5) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under strict application of the Land Use Code and engineering standards. (6) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, housing types, lot sizes, densities, and/or supporting nonresidential uses. (B)Objectives. (1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2) In return for flexibility in site design with respect to the arrangement, heights, and setbacks of buildings, densities, open space and circulation elements, as well as vesting of certain uses, densities and development standards, development under a PUD District must provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through application of a standard zone district, including, but not limited to: (a)Diversification in the use of land; (b)Innovation in development; (c)More efficient use of land and energy; (d) Extent of public amenities as appropriate in light of the scope of the development; and 2.3 Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) (e) Development patterns compatible in character and design with nearby areas and consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. (3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4) Promote coordination and cooperation among property owners within a large area. (5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD from negative impacts. (6) Provide a development review process that encourages heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City staff. (C)Applicability. (1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for PUD Master Plan approval. (2) An approved PUD Master Plan will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan (ODP). Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Master Plan may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (4) Unless otherwise specified, all references to vested rights within Division 4.29 shall mean PUD vested property rights. 2.3 Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) (D)Eligibility. (1) Minimum size 5 - 10 or no minimal acres limit as great community benefit could come is a small urban plot easier than larger properties. This process should be made available to the small local builder/ developers who have our communities best interest at heart more so than does the Wall Street type developer. The local talent is also more in tune with the community desires for more creative socially responsible solutions to local problems. The huge Wall Street developers are just selling the same old dream that is generic to the masses in every other market. The purpose of this process is to allow for better more creative solutions to troubled site and a 50 acre site is not an infill location it is a greenfield project and those projects are housing only otherwise to add commercial and business uses promotes sprawl, which is the opposite of community beneficial thinking. (2) Application for PUD approval must be authorized by all owners of property proposed to be included. (E)Permitted Uses. (1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD. (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan, and may be approved to the extent such uses satisfy the following criteria: (a)The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD District provisions set forth in Subsections 4.29(A)and (B) and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These subarea plans are useful but lack flexibility in zoning and permitted uses. The infill sites are extremely difficult to develop because they 2.3 Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) have more severe problems than does a greenmail site and therefore needs to allow for more flexible creative solutions. (b)The use conforms to the basic characteristics of the underlying zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. I disagree with the above statement as the underlying zone district is not always an appropriate planned use for the difficult site. It should be stated that the infill sites are allowed more flexibility for creative project solutions if a higher community benefit is to be reached. Sometime the highest and best use of a site is not for Urban Estates type lots but rather a community benefit project of a community farm agricultural project with some commercial operations like coffee brewing, bakery, farmers markets and other supporting business that are not permitted in most zoning designation but have huge community benefit. (c)The location and size of the use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of adjacent properties. The above sentence should be more positive in that these projects should be designed to enhance and collaborate with the surrounding properties to provide supporting uses that help create sense of place and purpose. (d)To the maximum extent feasible, use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasipublic facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the underlying zone district. This is way too restrictive because it takes away the chance and motivation for creative land 2.3 Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) uses will never fall within the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district. Keeping in mind that this process is intended for infill sites that have problems and therefore should be allowed the most flexibility. (e)The use is warranted by changing conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property (f)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use is compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate use for that land (g)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (F)Prohibited Uses. None. (G)Vesting of Uses, Density, and Modification of Development Standards. (1) PUD vested property rights may be approved as part of a PUD Master Plan under the provisions of this Division 4.29. The procedures in this Section 4.29(G) are the exclusive means by which vested rights may be approved within a PUD Master Plan. Section 2.2.11 does not apply to vested rights under a PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific development plan but is subject to Division 2.13, Vested Rights and Takings Determinations. (2) In order to vest rights under a PUD Master Plan, the applicant must submit an application for such vested rights as a part of its Development Application submittal. If approved as a part of a PUD Master Plan by the decision maker, the vested rights 2.3 Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) shall be described in the PUD Master Plan Development Agreement, which shall detail the elements of the PUD Master Plan which are vested, the term of vesting, and any conditions of that vesting. (3) The applicant must enumerate the elements for which it requests vesting, which may include: (a)Uses permitted in the underlying zone district and those approved to be added to the subject property as a part of an approved PUD Master Plan application. (b)Densities for permitted residential uses, the application may request vesting of such uses at established ratios of dwelling units per acre. (c)The applicant shall enumerate which specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards are proposed to be modified and vested, as modified, and the nature of that modification, in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Development Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with, and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Land Use Code Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities, is not eligible for modification. (4) The applicant shall list, as part of its application, the specific standards list which it wishes to modify, and the specific modification, in detail sufficient to enable the application of such modified standards, if approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, to later Project Development Plans and Final Development Plans. The decision maker shall review requests for the modification of development standards and the vesting of such modified standards against the following criteria, as appropriate and applicable to the specific PUD Master Plan 2.3 Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) application: (a) The degree to which modification of the development standards is consistent with the purpose of the PUD District as described in Section 4.29.A (b) The degree to which the modification of the development standard advances the objectives of the PUD District as described in Section 4.29.B (c) Whether the requested modification will significantly advance the development objectives of the application. (d) Whether the requested modification is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the application. (5) If approved, vesting applies despite later text amendments to the underlying zone district which remove or revise permitted uses or otherwise alter or revise permitted densities and development standards. (6) Term of vested rights: Uses, densities, and modified development standards which are approved for vesting under this Section shall be vested for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of approval of the PUD Master Plan. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any additional extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the decision maker for the PUD Master Plan, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in pursuing development under the approved PUD Master Plan, or 2.3 Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing development would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the decision maker for the PUD Master Plan. (7) Upon the expiration of the term of a vested right, the use, density, or development standard to which the vested right applied shall remain available for utilization. However, such use, density, or development standard is subject to amendment or elimination pursuant to Subsection (I)(8) of this Division. (H)Review Procedure. (1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the common review procedures, Section 2.15. (2) Criteria for approval of a PUD Master Plan:  aThat the application achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 A and B;  bThat the application will ensure superior urban design within the subject property in excess of development under the standards applicable to the underlying zone district;  cThat the application will ensure enhanced public and private infrastructure design, including the design of private residential, commercial and industrial structures at a level 2.3 Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) of quality significantly above that merely required by compliance with uniform codes and development standards;  dThat the application will ensure compatibility and/or the enhancements of the subject property with adjacent properties in design and use, as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and  eThat the application will result in a community benefit contribution development projects that are in the spirit and intended purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These public benefit contribution and enhancement type projects will not be restricted by outdated plans but will become timely updated amendments incorporated into the comprehensive planning strategies. Old and Outdated plans should not be the driving force for project compliance during changing times. The average age of the Fort Collins demographic is 29 years old and getting younger so they don’t want big hoses and yards they want a cheaper better way of living together in community that allows for flexibility in life pathways. Community! Community! Community! (I)Extension, Amendment, Expiration, and Termination of a PUD Master Plan. (1) PUD Master Plans may be established for an initial period not to exceed twenty (20) years. (2) Vested rights to uses, densities, and/or modified development standards within an approved PUD Master Plan are subject to the term established for those rights under subsection 4.29(G) (6). (3) Applicant must sign an agreement acknowledging the limited term of the PUD Master Plan, and, if granted, the term of the vested rights, the absence of any right to rely on the PUD 2.3 Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Master Plan or the vested rights beyond the approved terms for the same, and indemnifying the City for any claim related to their operation, enforcement, or expiration. (4) Upon the request of the property owners, the Council may terminate the PUD Master Plan. (5) When the PUD Master Plan expires or is terminated, the overlay designation on the zoning map is removed and the authority of the underlying zoning regulations is reestablished in total. (6) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan is subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (7) An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended, or its established expiration date may be extended, under the following alternative procedures: (a)Upon the request of all property owners within the District an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended by processing of an application in the same manner as an original request. (b)Upon the request of those property owners whose real property interests are directly affected, the Director may approve a minor amendment to the PUD Master Plan. (8) The City may initiate and impose an amendment or termination of an approved PUD Master Plan under the procedure set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 for zoning map amendments. No City initiated amendment or termination of an approved PUD Master Plan shall amend, modify, or terminate any vested right approved in connection with such PUD Master Plan earlier than the expiration date of such vested right. 2.3 Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall mean an area of land approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for development of an area within an approved PUD, which identifies the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site-specific development plan. PUD vested property right shall mean the right to utilize a use, density, or development standard specified in an approved PUD master plan during the term specified in such PUD Master Plan. Proposed Application Requirements (1) written explanation of the proposed development at a conceptual level (2) preliminary plans at concept review level (3) submittal information from master list (4) list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested pursuant to subsections 4.29(E) and 4.29(G) (5) map of the proposed application boundaries including all lots, tracts, out lots and rights-of-way 2.3 Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) (6) list of all property owners (7) written consent from all owners (8) list of all current and proposed special districts serving the property (9) Written statement explaining how the proposed PUD Master Plan complies with or enhances the Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable, adopted plans. (10) PUD Master Plan specifying the type and extent of development proposed including the following components: • overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses • transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation • location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for preservation • architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design intent. • phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase • list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan (11) listing of off-site infrastructure improvements and estimated costs 2.3 Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: PUD Code Public Comments (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Discussion Agenda: 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District. The proposed PUD Overlay District provides for additional flexibility in site design not available through traditional development procedures, and the ability for extended vested property rights, in return for the provision of significant public benefits. Under the PUD process, parcels 50 acres or greater in size are eligible to create a governing, multi-phased PUD Master Plan that directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans (PDP’s) and Final Plans for each development phase. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that Paul Patterson urges the Board to consider requiring two neighborhood meetings for a PUD. Article 5, Definitions, in Attachment 1 was updated in the packet with a new version on 5/29/18. Section 2.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.6 were added to supplemental documents on 5/29/18. Member Rollins recused herself Member Hansen stated he had viewed a previous PUD presentation as a member of the Development Review Advisory Committee. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project. This overview included a history of PUD’s in Fort Collins, public benefits, standards to be set, community engagement and attributes of the proposed ordinance. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, would like to see smaller parcel sizes rather than the large 50-acre greenfield parcels. Would like to recommend that the acreage be as little as 5-acre parcels. Paul Patterson, would like a requirement for neighborhood meetings for PUDs to be set at two and timing be when modifications and provisions of significant public benefit can be explicitly stated. Staff Response Planning Manager Gloss responded to Mr. Patterson’s concern about neighborhood meetings that the proposed requirement that a second neighborhood meeting would be required after the first round of development review and include requests for modification and the vesting of property rights. In response to Mr. Willis’ comments, Planning Manager Gloss spoke to the parcel sizes and rationale for the staff’s position relative to the size threshold. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider sought clarification as to whether or not this is in draft or final format. Planning Manager Gloss explained that the element that is not complete is the specific techniques to amend the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and Engineering Standards; otherwise, all other aspects are complete. Chair Schneider is uncomfortable with making a decision due to potential changes from now until the final adoption version. Assistant ATTACHMENT 4 2.4 Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Minutes, May 31, 2018 (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 7 City Attorney Schmidt responded that she agrees with Planning Manager Gloss and added that they were seeking input from the Board early in the process. Member Hobbs feels that PUDs have a large ramification for the community and it seems that outside of the P&Z Board and the one other Board conversation was limited to talking to some in the development community. Member Hansen expressed interest in other forms of community engagement. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the outreach process with legislative changes of this type was appropriate, since staff anticipates outcomes being better than plans that would go through a conventional process and that there would be a more rigorous public review process. It is felt that these projects will be held to a higher standard. Member Hobbs asked if it was reasonable to perceive that the PUD was like starting with a blank slate; zoning defined uses, setbacks, densities, etc. Planning Manager Gloss commented that in theory one could make that assumption however; the principals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and detailed area plans still stand, leaving the burden on the applicant to prove those values are embodied in the development plan. Member Hansen spoke to significant public benefits as a requirement. As Member Hansen understands, there has been a focus on removing subjectivity from the Land Use Code and this seems to be adding it in. How will we be measuring significant public benefit? Planning Manager Gloss responded that we do not have a definition that specifically states what this significant public benefit would be other than the PUD objectives. This is something that would be weighed by the decision maker, being either this Board or City Council. Member Hansen stated is it easy for him to agree in a small group with relatively common interests in mind but that he foresees that without a way to quantify it could turn contentious. Member Hansen is in favor of the PUD, but feels if there is too much uncertainty and onerous on developers, it will become another PDOD. Member Hobbs asked why the PUD was stopped or left behind. Planning Manager Gloss understands that when the system was previously in place there were a range of issues, for some it was a sense of less predictability, concern from the public and development community about the length of time it took to get through the review process, while others enjoyed the flexibility provided since our present code is highly prescriptive. Member Hobbs asked what the rational was for differentiating below and above 640 acres? Planning Manager Gloss responded that due to anything 640 acres or above is considered a legislative action and would need to go before Council. Chair Schneider asked why 640 acres matters. Attorney Schmidt spoke to the history of the 640- acre threshold, and that the concept is that, at some point, rezoning gets so large that is becomes more of a legislative act than an application of a narrow set of standards to a piece of property. This community has set the dividing line at one section. Chair Schneider asked that the goal then was to not change the zoning over the whole 640 acres. Would this automatically go to Council or come to the Planning and Zoning Board? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD overlay zone does not create a rezoning with the underlying zoning remaining the same. Chair Schneider state that there was some confusion as it appears there is an opportunity to take property and rezone/reuse and change what is there, why if we are not changing the use or overlying zoning, why do we need a PUD? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD Master Plan allows the applicant/property owner to essentially have uses that are different than what is allowed under the underlying zoning without the act of rezoning. Chair Schneider commented that the PUD Master Plan can change zoning and density and everything else that is allowed on that property. Planning Manager Gloss agreed and stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that this is an optional process. Attorney Schmidt commented that it is about creativity and allowing that creativity in the context of an overall master development plan that is intended to consider compatibility with existing areas around it and is intended to deliver something in terms of a high or better level of public benefit. Chair Schneider does not feel there is anything that we can compare it to and wants to make sure that people understand when they are buying property or have bought property in certain areas that they understand what they are up against. Member Hobbs feels that the Board must be careful with the effect on utilities, transportation, level of service issues, and other areas. Even if it is a greenfield site, the Board must look at what is located further away. Member Hobbs agrees and shares Chair Schneider’s hesitation. Chair Schneider stated that it looks like we are getting rid of the PDOD process, Planning Manager Gloss answered yes. Chair Schneider questioned what happens with the current project that is currently in the process. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the project did not submit a formal application and that there is not a project currently in 2.4 Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Minutes, May 31, 2018 (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 7 the process. Chair Schneider asked if we were getting rid of the APU process, Planning Manager Gloss answered no. Chair Schneider questioned a statement in the APU, 1.34 C1B, and wondered if this was going to affect the PUD. Planning Manager Gloss responded that this was a section that was not to be changed other than a few minor text amendments. Member Hobbs asked for issues that transcend a zoning district like the setbacks from oil wells - would these things still be on the table as a negotiable item in a PUD overlay? Planning Manager Gloss stated that all article 3 and 4 standards remain except where a modification is being requested, evaluated and granted under the PUD Master Plan process. Chair Schneider asked about trash and recycling design and that the Director can waive the design standards. Why are we not making this mandatory? Planning Manager Gloss responded that this is the way the code reads today and that no changes are being proposed. Chair Schneider made mentioned of a letter received from Post Modern Development and Mr. Patterson about requiring two (2) neighborhood meetings and wondered if this was going to be mandated. Planning Manager Gloss stated that was correct. Prior to submittal and the second will coincide with the first round of review. To answer questions posed by Post Modern Development, the staff reviewed in its presentation the range of sizes and can understand about the 50-acre minimum. Considerations would be made for other size thresholds. Chair Schneider referred to section 2.10 1 A-G and 2 A-E. Planning Manager Gloss responded that these sections relate to how an amendment would happen when you have a PUD Master Plan. For the most part, the PUD Master Plan amendment process mirrors what has been done for other types of applications. Deliberation Member Hobbs feels it is good for the community and offers flexibility to staff and will not become another PDOD, however; he is not at a point where he is comfortable voting on a recommendation and would like a continuation. Member Hansen agrees with Member Hobbs’ approach and offered suggestions. Developers will be able to think out of the box a bit. Some suggestions may be to devise a point system; he is also concerned about the parcel size of the threshold of 50 acres. Member Hansen also spoke to Chair Schneider’s concerns. Chair Schneider is not against the proposal, he feels is has been pushed too hard, too fast. There needs to be an opportunity for discussion and that if it is larger than 640 acres it becomes a political conversation, and that is not what the Land Use Code is about, it is about what is available and what is being used on that property. The size should go less than 50 acres. He would like this item to be continued Member Hobbs stated that the same two issues are also of concern to him. He is concerned about the surrounding effects of the larger PUDs that will come down. He would also like to discuss the possibility of appeal for Land Use. Member Hansen asked why there was a sense of urgency. Planning Manager Gloss responded that they had a target of August 1, 2018, roughly and even if there continued to the June 21, 2018 hearing, they would remain on that schedule. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Planned Unit Development Overlay Land Use Code changes included in the Board’s May 31, 2018 agenda to a future hearing date. Member Whitley seconded. Member Whitley would like more time to understand all of it. Chair Schneider agreed and is looking forward to a full work session. Vote: 4:0. 2. Oasis on Olive PDP180003 Project Description: This is a request to develop a 3-story multi-family, condominium building and ground level parking on approximately .223 acres of existing vacant land, located at 310 W. Olive Street. The 7-market rate residential units will be a mix of 3 1-bedroom units, and 4 2-bedroom units. The building includes 8,468 of living space, and 7 parking spaces provided at the ground level in an enclosed parking garage. Access to this site will be from W. Olive Street by means of a one-way private entry drive into the garage, and one-way exit to Canyon Avenue from a private drive. The site located in the Downtown (D) zone district, is subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review. 2.4 Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Minutes, May 31, 2018 (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) 1 Planned Unit Development Cameron Gloss June 19, 2018 ATTACHMENT 5 2.5 Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Questions 1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff recommendation? 2. Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration at an upcoming hearing? 2 2.5 Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Purpose Create an optional review process that affords development that provides: significant public benefit otherwise not achievable under existing regulations in return for flexibility in site design, land use, densities, building heights, building setbacks, open space arrangement, and circulation. 3 2.5 Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Public Benefits • Mixed-use • Land use diversification • Innovative land development • Efficient land and energy use • Exemplary pedestrian connections and amenities • Neighborhood compatibility 2.5 Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Typical PUD Attributes • Ideally suited for projects: • Developing in multiple phases over several years • Land use and density flexibility without rezoning • With unique street design • Needing long-term property rights vesting given length of development 2.5 Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) PUD Process Overview 2.5 Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) PUD vs Rezoning • PUD Master Plan retains the underlying zoning • Boundaries defining areas of different uses can be more flexible with PUD Master Plan being developed over time • Rezoning cannot consider a proposed development plan, where a PUD is controlled by a PUD Master Plan that defines uses and densities 7 2.5 Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Size Threshold 8 2.5 Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Size Threshold 9 2.5 Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Parcels 640+ acres 10 Subject to City Council Review due to policy implications 2.5 Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) PUD’s in Peer Cities Peer Cities PUD Size Threshold Point System 11 Eugene, OR Yes none No Olathe, KS Yes (PD) none No Lincoln, NE Yes 3 acres No Ann Arbor, MI Yes none No Greeley, CO Yes 1 acres No Loveland, CO Yes none No Boulder, CO No N/A No Thornton, CO Yes none No Denver, CO Yes 10 acres No Longmont, CO Yes 10 acres ‐ non‐infill, 20 acres ‐ infill, none ‐ overlays No 2.5 Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Example: Scotch Pines 12 Drake Rd Retail/ Commercial Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Approx. Acres: 52 2.5 Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Example: Oak-Cottonwood Farm (Miramont) 13 Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Harmony Rd Multi-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Retail/ Commercial Single-Family Residential Approx. Acres: 330 2.5 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Case Study: Jessup Farm 14 Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Rd Multi-Family Residential 8 acres-Bucking Horse Townhomes – LMN Single-Family Residential Retail/ Commercial Single-Family 13 acre Artisan Village Residential - Industrial 5 APU’s required 2.5 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Neighborhood Compatibility • 2 Neighborhood Meetings • 1st prior to submittal • 2nd following 1st round of review • All PDP’s within a PUD Master Plan must go through the PDP process, including compliance with the Article 3 Compatibility Standards 15 2.5 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Community Engagement • Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions Feb 8, May 11 • Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) May 8 • Property Owners/Developers 16 2.5 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6886 : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay) Planned Unit Development (PUD) As proposed, the term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development and the regulatory process that permits a developer to meet overall land use policies without being bound by all the underlying use requirements within the Land Use Code and makes a provision for modifying design and engineering standards. A PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD Master Plan is approved. Potential benefits of the PUD overlay may include more efficient site design, preservation of amenities such as open space, innovative community planning and site design solutions, higher level of design, engineering and construction and other community goals, while protecting long-term property rights for larger properties being constructed over multiple phases and long time periods. PUD Zone District vs. Overlay Zone When evaluating the potential zoning structure within the PUD ordinance, two options were considered: a PUD overlay zone that supplements the existing underlying zoning and, alternatively, the adoption of a PUD zone district that contains its own set of regulations and displaces the underlying zone. Given the pros and cons of each approach, staff is proposing the former option. Under the proposed PUD overlay zone, the effect of such designation is that the regulations for land use, density and design in the underlying zone district still apply to the PUD unless expressly modified during the Master Plan process. PUD Master Plan as the Regulating Document The PUD ordinance requires that developers first create a PUD Master Plan that provides greater detail than the “bubble diagrammatic” scale found in the City’s existing Overall Development Plan (ODP) process. The Master Plan must have sufficient detail to serve as the overall guiding vision for the long-term development. At this Master Plan level, applicants must provide specific requests for elements that will receive entitlement to long-term 2 Packet Pg. 185 a case-by-case basis only • Supported staff recommendation with additions • Require identification of responsible party if plugged well fails • Add requirements for repair, annual third- party monitoring, and bonding to address any future well integrity issues • Require regular inspections • Did not support staff recommendation • Apply same buffers as for active wells, with no variances allowed 4. Require an additional method of notification (property covenant) for all properties within 1000 feet Supported staff recommendation Supported staff recommendation Supported staff recommendation * High Occupancy Building Units include certain schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and daycare centers. BACKGROUND Current Oil and Gas Operations in Fort Collins The Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) contains 16 active wells (all operated by Prospect Energy) and 30 wells that have been abandoned. Prospect Energy’s operations in the Fort Collins Field are limited to oil production; no natural gas is extracted or produced within the GMA. The Fort Collins Field consists of unpressurized oil that is bonded to bedrock. Water pressure is used to force oil upward, and the resulting product is approximately 97% water and 3% oil, with almost no associated gas. Unlike natural gas operations in other communities along the Front Range, continuous flaring does not occur at the Fort Collins wells, as there is little to no gas that would need to be flared. There is little possibility for methane to migrate upward from the formation for either active or abandoned wells. Abandoned wells in Fort Collins vary significantly in age, with some wells abandoned as far back as the 1920s and others abandoned within the last year. As such, the amount and precision of information about these wells (e.g., exact locations or details about how they were plugged) also varies. Unknown or undiscovered wells in the 1 Packet Pg. 4 occupied building • Do not allow variances to setbacks 1 Packet Pg. 3 Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center: Childcare Scholarships $60,000 $51,000 $9,000 85% TEAM Wellness and Prevention: Engaging Families for Prevention $25,500 $0 $25,500 0% The Family Center/La Familia: Childcare Scholarship Program $50,000 $42,000 $8,000 84% The Growing Project: Gardening Education & Healthy Food Access for Youth $21,500 $6,000 $15,500 28% The Matthews House: Building Employment Skills $8,100 $3,000 $5,100 37% The Matthews House: Empowering Youth Program $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 67% The Salvation Army: Rent & Utility Assistance $20,000 $0 $20,000 0% Turning Point Center for Youth and Family Development: Crisis Intervention Services $30,000 $13,000 $17,000 43% Voices Carry Child Advocacy Center: Family Advocacy & Victim Services $26,500 $23,000 $3,500 87% 3.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) The Center for Family Outreach: Scholarship Program $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 50% ChildSafe Colorado: Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program $43,265 $38,000 $5,265 88% ChildSafe Colorado: Capital Campaign (Public Facility) $50,000 $0 $50,000 0% Colorado Health Network: Northern Colorado AIDS Project (NCAP) $15,000 $7,500 $7,500 50% Crossroads Safehouse: Advocacy Project $60,137 $39,500 $20,637 66% Disabled Resource Services: Access to Independence $33,074 $33,074 $0 100% 3.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) Administration/Planning $95,607 $95,607 $0 100% Administration/Planning Total $310,249 $310,249 $0 100% 3.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) $1,576,344 *. In the Human (Public) Service and Public Facility category 39 applications were received totaling $1,410,293. There is a shortage in Human (Public) Service dollars of $485,210. The following table summarizes the amount of funding requests compared to the amount of funding available for each of the categories: 3.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6863 : SR 070 071 Competitive Process) 2.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 5, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6860 : SR 069 Light & Power Circuits Appropriation)