HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/28/2020 - ADJOURNED MEETINGCity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Kristin Stephens, District 4, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Julie Pignataro, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Emily Gorgol, District 6 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Adjourned Meeting
July 28, 2020
6:00 p.m.
(Amended 7/28/2020)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS
There will be three options for people who would like to participate in the meeting:
• Live via the Zoom online meeting,
• Live via the telephone,
• Live in Council Chambers,
• By submitting emails to Council at CityLeaders@fcgov.com.
All options will be available for those wishing to provide general public comment, as well as public
comment during individual discussion items.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE):
Individuals who wish to address Council via remote public participation can do so through Zoom
at https://tinyurl.com/fccouncilmeeting2020. The link and instructions are also posted
at www.fcgov.com/councilcomments. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch
the meeting through that site, and not via FCTV, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
The Zoom meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Participants wanting
to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to 6:00 p.m. For public comments, the Mayor
will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff
will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address Council.
In order to participate, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer.
o Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience.
• Join the Zoom meeting.
o You can find the link on the front page of the agenda or on the City’s home webpage at
www.fcgov.com.
• If you use the City’s home page, simply click on the “Participate remotely in Council Meeting” link
shown near the top of the page.
• Please remember to not watch/stream FCTV at the same time due to delays and possible feedback
issues.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (PHONE OPTION):
• Dial public participation phone number, 1-346-248-7799 then enter the Meeting ID 982 4141 6497
followed by the pound sign (#).
• Phone participation information is also available on the City’s home webpage by clicking on the
“Remote Public Participation Instructions” link shown near the top of the page.
• The meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if
possible. For public comments, the Mayor will ask participants to indicate if you would like to speak at
that time – phone participants will need to press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address Council. Once you join the meeting:
DO NOT Watch/stream FCTV at the same time due to streaming delay and possible audio
interference.
WATCH THE MEETING:
• Anyone can view the Council meeting live on Channels 14 and 881 or online at www.fcgov.com/fctv.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (VIA EMAIL):
Individuals not comfortable or able to access the Zoom platform or able to participate by phone are
encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to
CityLeaders@fcgov.com. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled,
please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send prior to the meeting Tuesday evening.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to speak to a document or presentation, the City Clerk needs to
be emailed those materials by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Note: Only individuals who wish to address Council should use the Zoom link or call in by phone. Anyone
who wants to watch the meeting, but not address Council, should view the FCTV livestream.
VIEW LIVE STREAM
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.
• CALL MEETING TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
1. Emergency Ordinance No. 094, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund
from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V. (staff: SeonAh Kendall; 10 minute
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN AMENDED.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate the City Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF) allocation in an
emergency ordinance due to the immediate exigency in addressing COVID-19. The City has incurred
significant expenditures in its response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and anticipates
City of Fort Collins Page 3
further costs as COVID-19 continues to have health, social and economic consequences. Any
remaining CVRF funds will be utilized to address social and economic recovery in our community.
Emergency ordinances are authorized under the Charter in emergency circumstances and require the
affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council for passage.
2. Resolution 2020-070 Accepting and Adopting Ethics Opinion No. 2020-02 of the Ethics Review Board
Advising Councilmember Emily Gorgol in Response to Her Request for an Advisory Opinion. (staff:
Carrie Daggett; 10 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is proposed adoption by the City Council of Ethics Opinion No. 2020-02 of
the Ethics Review Board providing an advisory opinion to Councilmember Emily Gorgol in response
to her request related to various upcoming Council decisions regarding manufactured housing.
3. Consideration of a motion to enter into executive session to discuss legal matters relating to
manufactured housing zoning matters.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 28, 2020
City Council
STAFF
SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager
Blaine Dunn, Senior Treasury Analyst
Ryan Malarky, Legal
SUBJECT
Emergency Ordinance No. 094, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund from the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate the City Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF) allocation in an emergency
ordinance due to the immediate exigency in addressing COVID-19. The City has incurred significant
expenditures in its response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and anticipates further costs as COVID-
19 continues to have health, social and economic consequences. Any remaining CVRF funds will be utilized to
address social and economic recovery in our community. Emergency ordinances are authorized under the
Charter in emergency circumstances and require the affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council
for passage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Emergency Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On May 18, 2020, Governor Polis signed Executive Order D2020 070, Directing the Expenditure of Federal
Funds Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, to establish the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF). Through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), this fund will
reimburse costs to counties, municipalities and special districts that:
1. Are necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 emergency;
2. Are not accounted for in the local government’s budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the
date of enactment of the CARES Act);* and
3. Were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 30, 2020.
*The one exception is payroll expense for staff such as public safety, human services and similar employees
whose service were substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health
emergency.
Intent
The City has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, increased expenditures due to its COVID-19 emergency
response. The requirement that expenditures be incurred “due to” the public health emergency means
expenditures must be used for actions taken to respond to the public health emergency. Costs incurred by the
City from March 1, 2020 - December 30, 2020 are reimbursable, as long as those items were not budgeted as
AMENDED 7/28/20
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
of March 27, 2020. The CARES CVRF does not allow for municipality revenue backfill/replacement, including
the direct replacement of unpaid utility fees or tax obligations.
The City’s $9,015,692 CARES CVRF allocation is one component of the City’s overall recovery goals. Moreover,
CVRF is to be deployed for the health and safety of our community and region, while advancing the City’s
strategic plan. Eligible expenditures are in service for the overall community recovery.
Per the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County and surrounding communities (Resolution
2020-059), the City is committed to conferring in September 2020 to share information on the progress and
utilization of funds and to consider adjustments to the allocation in the event the parties do not reasonably expect
to utilize all of the allocated funds.
Eligible Expenditures
Direct City-incurred expenditures to address the public health emergency. These costs advance community
safety and recovery:
Payroll expenses for public safety, human services and similar employees whose services are substantially
dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Expenses for communication of the public health orders.
Expenses for medical and protective supplies, including sanitizing products and personal protective
equipment.
Expenses to improve telework capabilities for public employees to enable compliance with COVID-19 public
health precautions.
Expenses for providing paid sick and paid family and medical leave to public employees.
Expenses related to supporting regional health initiatives, such as increased testing support through regional
partners.
Expenses to facilitate compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures for our residents and
social recovery include:
o Rental or mortgage assistance to avoid eviction or foreclosure.
o Utility payment assistance to continue to receive essential services.
o Food delivery to residents, including, for example, senior citizens and other vulnerable population.
o Facilitation of distance learning and remote working, including technological improvements.
o Emergency sheltering for people experiencing homelessness to mitigate COVID-19 effects and enable
social distancing compliance.
Expenses associated with the provision of economic recovery in support of our business community
comprises:
o Provision of grants to small businesses with the costs of business interruption caused by required
closures.
o Reimbursement of the Fort Collins Main Street Loan Program loan-loss reserve.
o Expenses incurred to publicize the resumption of tourism activities and steps taken to ensure a safe
experience.
Sector Direct City Response Residents Businesses
Proposed Distribution 28% 42% 30%
Expended $558,000 $233,000 $165,000
Available Funds $2,010,000 $3,510,000 $2,539,000
Total $2,567,692 $3,743,000 $2,705,000
AMENDED 7/28/20
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
Process for Social and Economic Recovery Grants
As subrecipients of the City’s CVRF, eligible organizations and entities will need to apply for awards and meet
the same eligibility and intent as defined by the US Treasury for the CARES CVRF. Staff is currently developing
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and grant criteria. The Recovery Policy Group will prioritize and provide
direction and oversight of the grants, and report monthly to Council on grantees and awards.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The City’s general fund is eligible for an estimated $1 million in reimbursements related to costs incurred to date
to address the COVID-19 public health emergency. These expenditures include payroll for public employees
such as:
Redeployment of City staff whose duties were “substantially different” from their ordinary responsibilities.
Public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are
substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the public health emergency; and
Emergency Family and Medical Leave (EFML) and Emergency Paid Sick Leave (PSL) to enable
compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.
Safety, sanitation products and personal protective equipment.
Communication and website development of nocorecovers.com and forfortcollins.com to support
residents and businesses with one-stop-shop resources.
The remainder of the CVRF funds will be used as described above, including the reimbursement of expenses
the City has not yet incurred. Based on the guidance, the funds cannot be used for revenue backfill and will
therefore be used for new expenses incurred due to COVID-19.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (PDF)
2. CARES Allocation Research (PDF)
3. CARES Data Information (PDF)
4. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
AMENDED 7/28/20
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
1.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: CARES Funding IGA with Larimer County (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
CARES Comparison – Counties
CARES Breakdown Compliance Requirements for Cities Projects/Programs
Adams
County
• Received $90M
• 55% County
• 45% City – disbursed by population
• County also kept Unincorporated Adams County allotment
of the 45%
• Total County $ = $57.4M or 63.6% of CARES allotment
• Cities sign an IGA, taking responsibility that all
charges meet the guidelines
• Money given in 3 installments
• Monthly report submitted to County with vendor,
date, amount, and description/justification
information
• ~$16M – temporary allocation to small
business, non-profit, health dept.,
emergency services, and mini grant
program.
• Internal technology enhancements,
software licensing, computers, etc.
• Hazard stipends for front line workers
• Building modifications
Jefferson
County
• Received $101.7M
• 55% County
• 45% City – disbursed by population
• County also kept Unincorporated Jefferson County
allotment of the 45%
• Total County $ = $72M or 71% of CARES allotment
• All receipts are uploaded to a folder in SharePoint
• Cities are required to enter info to a summary
spreadsheet: date of transaction, payee, type of
expense, description of how it is COVID related
and verification the expense was not budgeted for
this year
• Receive 50% of allocation. Need to spend the first
half and submit a spending plan in order to
receive second half
• Grant Programs
• Non-profits: $2.5M
• Business: $5M
• Bulk Food Purchasing: $900K
• PPE purchases for health providers and
JeffCo departments
• Other
Arapahoe
County
• Received $114.55M
• 55% County
• 45% City – disbursed by population
• County also kept Unincorporated Arapahoe County
allotment of the 45%
• Can exercise refusal power for any request for
reimbursement
• Cities submit program expense for reimbursement
on a monthly basis.
• Pre-approval process for programs to make sure
CARES Comparison – Cities
CARES $ Allocated – County
Compliance/Requirements
Projects/Programs Other Projects & Future Ideas
City of Arvada CARES $ Allocated
$9.4M – Jefferson (~$9.2M), Adams (~$2.4K)
• $2.5M – Small business loans/grants
• $2M - Business incentive program
• $175K – Olde Town/BID support
• $622K – Biz PPE/Safety
• $420K Chamber/Visitor Center programs
• ~$1M – Non-profit support
• $725K – renter and mortgage relief
• $31K – Shelter
• $50K – Navigator support
• $250K – Homeless family support
• $556K – City PPE, safety, cleaning
• $360K – City technology
• $108K – Unemployment, sick, EFMLA
• $590K – Unallocated
Future Ideas
• City Wi-Fi in Olde Town (~$5K)
• Utility Relief Program (~$50K)
• Homeless Family COVID-19 Relief Program
(~$250K)
• Arts & Culture Relief
• Direct loss of income grants (~$500K)
• Direct commissions (~$100K)
• New CRM tool ($100K)
City of Aurora CARES $ Allocated
$34M – Arapahoe (~$30M), Adams (~$4M)
• $5M – Small business grants
• $1M – Non-profit grants/support
• Internal expenses: telework funding, PPE,
emergency services
Future Ideas:
• Hazard pay
• FEMLA
• Public safety/health payroll
• CU partnerships
• Food distribution
City of Wheat Ridge CARES $ Allocated
$2.46M – Jefferson County
• $500K - Business Stability Grant
• $55K - Business assistance
• $250K - Remote Work Tech.
• $25K - Tech to support remote
meetings/hybrid Council
• $50K - PPE
• $50K - Sanitation (vehicle/facility)
• $20K - Facility modifications
• $75K - Unemployment Insurance
• $13K - FFCRA mandated employee leave
• ~ $700K - Employees work diverted due to
COVID - (through May)
Other Projects
• 12,000 masks provided to local businesses
• Business Support Program – helps businesses
reopen using expanded temporary space
(alleys/patios). Businesses can submit for
City of Westminster CARES $ Allocated
$8.98M – Adams ($5.5M), Jefferson
($3.47M)
• $550K – Hazard pay for first responders (3/17-
5/31)
• $4M – Economic recovery (business grants
and other support)
• $728K – Social recovery (programs that
rebuild community connections and promote
wellness
• $750K – People and Programs Serving People
(help partners supply housing and food
security)
• $3.5M – Local Government Recovery (help
City employees and visitors respond to
changing work environments)
Other Projects:
• Restaurant program – believe will have a
significant ROI on creating and retaining jobs and
aiding sales tax revenue
• Considering: workers compensation,
unemployment, FFCRA, technology expenses,
Future Ideas:
• Collaboration with County on food security and
housing/rent payment assistance
• Mobile testing and vaccination
City/County of
Denver
CARES $ Allocated
$126.8M
Phase 1 Emergency Support (May 19th)
• $4M - Rent and utility assistance
• $1M - Mortgage assistance
• $1.5M - Programs and rehousing strategies
• $2M – Food assistance (including Denver
Public Schools)
• $2.2M – Non-profit support grants
• $4.3M – Small business grants
• $5M – Public health programs
Future Ideas:
• Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance
• Mortgage assistance programs
• Rehousing
1.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: CARES Allocation Research (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Follow up: Supporting Needs Data Request from Council Finance July 20, 2020
On July 20, 2020, staff presented to Council Finance Committee where there was a request for needs
assessment.
Business
McKinsey’s analysis of several surveys of small businesses suggest that 25 – 36 percent could close
permanently because of the disruption from just the four months of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Research
has found that minority‐owned businesses own a quarter of small businesses in the most affected sectors
such as restaurant/hospitality, retail and construction.*
1. Number of businesses with between 2 and 20 employees: 2,858 Fort Collins businesses
2. Number of businesses that received PPP loans or EIDL loans within Fort Collins:
4,027 ‐ 483 received greater than $150K and 3,544 less than $150K
3. Number of businesses that fit the Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBEs):
Sum of Number of employer firms
Meaning of Race code Total
White 8403
Asian 283
American Indian and Alaska Native 60
Black or African American 28
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 0
Grand Total 8774
Sum of Number of employer firms
Meaning of Ethnicity code Total
Non-Hispanic 8430
Hispanic 249
Grand Total 8679
Sum of Number of employer firms
Meaning of Sex code Total
Equally male/female 1423
Female 2098
Male 5230
Grand Total 8751
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: CARES Data Information (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
4. Number of businesses that need rent/mortgage assistance:
COVID Regional Survey– Survey #2 (report issued May 29, 2020)
Rent/Mortgage Relief
26 businesses (38%) requested changes to their rent/mortgage payment.
Residential
Rental assistance – Neighbor to Neighbor has shared they anticipate serving 140 households per
month through the end of the year (this is an increase from the 90 households/month they’ve
served throughout the pandemic to date). Economic impacts of COVID‐19 created a 300%‐470%
increase in demand for rental assistance – prior to COVID – approximately 30 households were
served per month
Homelessness – NACC served approximately 250 persons experiencing homelessness daily and 90
nightly. Pre‐COVID, the January 2020 point‐in‐time count was 260, which included all shelters,
indicating the overall need has increased.
Childcare ‐ Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Early Childhood Council estimated that over 7,000
children under age six in Larimer County did not have access to licensed childcare while their
parents are at work. This extreme shortage of childcare options for working families has been
further compounded with classroom ratio reductions, childcare staff retention losses, and
significant revenue decreases for licensed providers.
1.3
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: CARES Data Information (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Food insecurity – The Food Bank of Larimer County (FBLC) served 3,945 registered clients in June
(this number does not include the over 1,000 clients registered as anonymous, clients served at
pop‐up pantries, or clients served at partner agencies.
o Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap 2020 study for Larimer County has projected that
food insecurity could increase from the original estimate of 32,280 county residents to
50,160 people due to COVID‐19.
o FBLC distributed 10.5 million pounds of food this last fiscal year – more than we ever
have.
o We are serving 750 individuals per day at our drive‐through Food Share locations.
o Next month, we are adding 2 pop‐up mobile pantries in locations with high racial disparity
in our community to continue to meet the need.
o Our Nourishing Network partners have increased the amount of food they are getting
from us by 100% over last year since COVID started.
o In a recent client survey, 18.5% responded that they are “very worried” about being able
to provide food for their family in the next two months; when the time frame in that
question was extended to this fall/winter, those who reported being “very worried”
increased to 28.7%. The other options were “very confident” (17.6%) and “somewhat
confident” (53.7%) for the fall/winter timeframe.
*Dua, A. (June 18, 2020). Which Small Businesses are Most Vulnerable to COVID‐19 – and When. McKinsey
& Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured‐insights/americas/which‐small‐businesses‐are‐most‐
vulnerable‐to‐covid‐19‐and‐when
1.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: CARES Data Information (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
07.28.2020
CARES CVRF
Blaine Dunn & SeonAh Kendall
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Build Resilience for the New Normal
2
1.4
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
3
Recovery Implementation Project
Communication
Policy Group
Weekly Meeting
Provide direction
and oversight
Core Team
Bimonthly Meeting
Create and execute
action plans Stakeholders
Internal & External
Quarterly Meeting
Cascade
communication and
align work plans to City
Recovery Plan
Council
Periodic Updates
Approve direction
and provide input
1.4
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Guidance from US Treasury
4
01
Expenses must be
necessary due to the
Public Health
Emergency
• Direct Response
• Second-Order
Effects
02
May not be used to
offset lost tax revenue
or have been budgeted
as of March 27, 2020*
03
Funds unspent as of
December 30, 2020
must be returned
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Strategy, Planning & Analysis, April 2020
1.4
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
CARES CVRF
Guiding Principles
City of Fort Collins CARES CVRF ($9,015,692) is only one
component of the City’s overall recovery goals
• Response to COVID – safety, impacts, etc.
• Benefit our community and region
• Advance City’s strategic plan
5
1.4
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Eligibility
6
City Direct Response
• Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE)
• Emergency Operations
Center (EOC)
• Safety, Sanitation and
Cleaning
• Payroll for public
safety, public health
and those that are
substantially dedicated
to responding to
COVID-19
Residential
• Rental Assistance
• Homelessness
• Childcare
• Food Security
• Digital access
Business
• Rental Assistance
• Small Business Loans
• Wrap-around Services
for Disadvantage
Business Enterprises
(DBEs)
1.4
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
CARES CVRF Oversight
7
Direct City Response for
COVID
Residential Support for
COVID
Business Support for
COVID
Total: $2,568,000 or 28%
Examples: Community recovery
includes reimbursing City expenses such
as supplies, personal protective
equipment, personnel costs and improve
telework capabilities during emergency
COVID crisis.
Process:
• Funds expended to address the
public health related to COVID19
from March – June 2020 are eligible
for reimbursement
• Department Project Managers use
standardized request and tracking
process
Total: $3,743,000 or 42%
Examples: Social recovery including rental
assistance, utility payment assistance, food
security and childcare assistance and physical
distancing in congregate and non-congregate
shelters for homeless.
Process:
• FAQs & grant criteria established
• Application process for
requests through fcgov.com website
• Reimbursement selection committee will
be assigned (monthly reporting to ELT
and Council)
• Recipient reimbursement and
audit process
Total: $2,705,000 or 30%
Examples: Economic recovery including small
business grants for rental assistance, payroll,
etc. Area of interest is in disadvantaged
business enterprises (DBEs) such as women-,
minority- and veteran-owned businesses.
Process:
FAQs & grant criteria established
• Application process for requests through
fcgov.com website
• Reimbursement selection committee will
be assigned (monthly reporting to ELT
and Council)
• Recipient reimbursement and audit
process
1.4
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Milestones
8
July August September October November December
July 22
ELT
Review
**Secondary Project identification, scope, budget and timeline developed simultaneous to primary
Dec 30
Last Eligible
Day for
Reimbursable
Costs
July 23
CVRF Project
Managers
Team Mtg
Aug 3
Draft PM
Scope of
Work &
Timelines
Aug 14
Detail Plan
& Budgets
DUE from PMs
Aug 31
Final
Submittals
from PMs
Sept 16
ELT Review
Project
Submittals
Dec 18
All
Expenditures
Executed
July 20
Council
Finance
Committee
July 28
City
Council
Sept 22
City Council
Work
Session
Sept 2020
County
Submittal/
Redistribution
Meeting
• • • • • • • •
• Bimonthly Internal PM On-Track Meetings
Nov 3
City Council
Staff
Update
1.4
Decision
9
Dates Action Needed
July 28, 2020 After Council approves general framework & proposed allocations, then staff can
begin purchasing process**
Aug 5, 2020 Recovery Policy Team reviews feasibility of submitted project
September 2020 Cities and County meet to identify available funds and redistribute, if needed
September 22, 2020 City Council Work Session
Oct 30, 2020 Recovery Policy Team review of ongoing projects and redistribute if projects are
not at anticipated levels
Nov 3, 2020 Staff update to City Council
**Council will be asked to set general guidance on categories and desired priorities; updates will be provided to
Council monthly
1.4
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance to
appropriate the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF),
CARES Act, Title V.
10
1.4
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Project Ideas:
by Strategic Outcome
11
Neighborhood Livability and Social Health
Personnel Rapid Rehousing
Volunteer Program Food Security
North Atzlan Community Center Childcare and Daycare Assistance
Rental and Mortgage Assistance Translation and Cultural Outreach and Engagement
Digital Access Feasibility Study Community Website for Nonprofit Resources
Congregate Shelter Digital Access for Manufactured Home Communities
Utility Payment Support Childhood Council
Non-congregate Shelter Air Quality
1.4
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Project Ideas:
By Strategic Outcome
12
Economic Health Safe Community
Personnel Personnel
Regional Education/Communication Campaign Safety and Sanitation Supplies
Revolving Loan Fund Reimbursement Emergency Operations Center
Reopen Campaign – nocorecovers.com PFA – FEMA Match
Support Local Campaign – forfortcollins.com Office Configuration
Marketing Safe Tourism
Downtown Development Authority Marketing
1.4
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
Project Ideas:
By Strategic Outcome
13
High Performing Government Other
Personnel Contingency
Hybrid IT Office Setup
Recreation Safety & Technology
1.4
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 094, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE CORONAVIRUS
RELIEF FUND (CVRF), CARES ACT, TITLE V
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is threatened with serious injury and damage,
consisting of widespread human and economic impact caused by the Novel Coronavirus 2019
(COVID-19); and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, in order to undertake emergency measures to protect the
life, health, safety and property of the citizens of the City and persons conducting business therein,
and in order to attempt to minimize the loss of human life and the preservation of property, the
City Manager, as the Director of the City's Office of Emergency Management, proclaimed a "local
emergency" in accordance with Section 2-671(a)(1) of the City Code and activated the Emergency
Operations Plan established pursuant to Section 2-673 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic has had an unexpected and substantial impact on
health risks for City residents, the social structures in the community, the economic wellbeing of
the business community, and the services provided by the City in response; and
WHEREAS, the prevention and management of exposure to COVID-19 and mitigation of
related social, economic, and other impacts of all kinds continue to require emergency action by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, with the adoption of Resolution 2020-030, extended the
City Manager's proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado declared its first Emergency Disaster Declaration
related to COVID-19 on March 11, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2020, the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act, (“CARES Act”) was signed into law, making over $330 billion in economic
assistance available to state and local governments; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, Governor Polis signed Executive Order D2020
070, directing the expenditure of federal funds pursuant to the CARES Act, to establish the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (“CVRF”); and
WHEREAS, the CVRF is intended to reimburse costs to counties, municipalities and
special districts in Colorado that are necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID
emergency; are not accounted for in the local government’s most recent budget; and were are
incurred between March 1, 2020 and December 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CARES CVRF allocation of $9,015,692 is one component of the
City’s overall recovery goals; and
WHEREAS, the CARES CVRF funds will be used to provide economic assistance to the
business community; to, through a grant process, assist local residents with social recovery and in
complying with public health measures; and for direct City-incurred costs to address the public
health emergency and in support of regional health initiatives, such as increased testing support
through regional partners; and
WHEREAS, this emergency ordinance is meant to further the City's emergency response
related to COVID-19 consistent with the Governor’s May 18 Order by appropriating funds for
quick deployment for the health and safety of our community and region, while advancing the
City’s strategic plan ; and
WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of assisting in the overall community recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, 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 this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 6 of the City Charter authorizes the Council to adopt
emergency ordinances, which shall be finally passed on the first reading by the affirmative vote of
at least five members of the Council and which shall contain the specific statement of the nature
of the emergency.
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 unanticipated revenue in the General
Fund the sum of NINE MILLION FIFTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY-TWO
DOLLARS ($9,015,692) for expenditure in the General Fund for the reimbursements related to
costs incurred to datealready incurred and costs that will be incurred to address the COVID-19
public health emergency.
Section 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the publication of this
Emergency Ordinance in accordance with the Fort Collins City Charter.
Introduced, considered favorably by at least five (5) members of the Council of the City of
Fort Collins and finally passed as an emergency ordinance and ordered published this 28th day of
July, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 28, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-070 Accepting and Adopting Ethics Opinion No. 2020-02 of the Ethics Review Board Advising
Councilmember Emily Gorgol in Response to Her Request for an Advisory Opinion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is proposed adoption by the City Council of Ethics Opinion No. 2020-02 of the Ethics
Review Board providing an advisory opinion to Councilmember Emily Gorgol in response to her request
related to various upcoming Council decisions regarding manufactured housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under City Code Section 2-569(d)(2), any Councilmember may present directly to the Ethics Review Board
(the “Board” or “ERB”) any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or
the City Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Councilmember or board and commission
member.
The Board, comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens, chair, Councilmember Ken Summers and
Councilmember Julie Pignataro, met on July 15, July 17, and July 24, 2020, to consider and render an
advisory opinion addressing two questions submitted to the Board by Councilmember Emily Gorgol on July 8,
2020. Councilmember Gorgol asked the following questions related to her participation in Council’s upcoming
decisions regarding manufactured housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and role at the
Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1)
the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and role at the
Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1)
the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
A copy of the Agenda Item Summary from the July 15 meeting and the July 24 meeting are attached (without
their lengthy attachments) as background. All materials from the Board’s meetings are available at the
following web address: https://www.fcgov.com/council/ethics.php .
The local ethics provisions considered as part of the Board’s inquiry are City Charter Article IV, Section 9(a),
regarding conflicts of interest, and City Code Section 2-568(a), establishing related definitions. The state ethics
provisions considered as part of this inquiry include the following Colorado Revised Statutes: Sections 24-18-
2
Packet Pg. 45
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 2
102 through -105 and Section 24-18-109. The Board also considered the applicability of Article XXIX of the
Colorado Constitution (referred to as “Amendment 41”). These provisions are discussed and examined in
Ethics Opinion No. 2020-02, as applicable.
Section 2-569(c) provides for the opinions and recommendations of the Board to be submitted to the full
Council for Council consideration for approval by resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (PDF)
2. Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 46
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 15, 2020
Ethics Review Board
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
Consideration of the July 8, 2020, request by Councilmember Emily Gorgol for an advisory review and opinion
by the Ethics Review Board pursuant to City Code Section 2-569(d)(2) regarding her participation in Council’s
upcoming decisions regarding manufactured housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is consideration of the July 8, 2020, request by Councilmember Emily Gorgol for an
advisory review and opinion by the Ethics Review Board pursuant to City Code Section 2-569(d)(2) regarding
the following questions related to her participation in Council’s upcoming decisions regarding manufactured
housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and role at the Family
Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and role at the
Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1)
the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Ethics Review Board (“ERB”) should consider Councilmember Gorgol’s questions in light of the City
Charter and Code, relevant ethics opinions, and applicable State ethics laws, and information obtained from
Councilmember Gorgol regarding her circumstances, and formulate an advisory opinion.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under City Code Section 2-569 (attached), City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board (“ERB”) inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical situations
involving potential conflicts of interest. On July 6, Councilmember Gorgol indicated her intent to request that the
ERB consider one or more ethics questions related to her participation in upcoming Council action regarding
manufactured housing. On July 8, 2020, Councilmember Gorgol submitted the following questions to ERB chair,
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and role at the Family
Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and role at the
Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1)
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
2
the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured
housing communities?
Upcoming Council decisions regarding Manufactured Housing:
• Scheduled for Council consideration in July and August is the proposed adoption of amendments to the
City’s Land Use Code establishing a Manufactured Housing zone district.
• Assuming such amendments are adopted, the Council would subsequently consider ordinances the
rezoning of properties appropriately placed within this zone district after such proposed rezonings had
been considered by the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to Council.
• In addition, if City Plan amendments are needed in order to reflect the policies underlying the
Manufactured Housing zone district, Council would consider those amendments after consideration and
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board.
• Finally, Council enacted a moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured housing communities in
August 2019 and that moratorium will terminate at the end of August 2020 unless extended by the
Council. Council may wish to consider an ordinance extending the moratorium and if so this action
would likely occur in July and August as well.
Councilmember Gorgol’s employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia:
The following is the statement submitted by Councilmember Gorgol describing her position and role at The
Family Center/La Familia:
My position at TFC/LF is primarily funded by the Health Disparities Grant Program (HDGP)
administered by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) Health Equity office.
CDPHE receives funding for the HDGP through Amendment 35 (tobacco tax). HDGP was create to
“provide prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancer and cardiovascular and pulmonary
diseases to under-represented population" (CRS 25-4 2201 (2)). Smaller portions of funding for my
position have included the Larimer County Built Environment (LCDHE) through the Cancer,
Cardiovascular, and Chronic Pulmonary Disease (CCPD) grant program which receives funding from
Amendment 35 as well. Due to being grant funded my compensation is not tied to the success of the
program, rather it is tied to meeting deliverables such as number of meetings.
Overview of Work
Pertaining to this advisory opinion I will focus my work activities on a program called “Mi Voz” (My
Voice). Mi Voz is a community-led project working with Spanish speaking residents in mobile home
parks to address housing insecurity through civic engagement, leadership development, and
advocacy. Mi Voz works very intentionally with three mobile home parks: Poudre Valley Mobile Home
Park (Larimer County), Hickory Mobile Home Park (City of Fort Collins), and Parklane Mobile Home
Park (Larimer County). While Mi Voz works closely with these three parks there are community
members that have attended informational meetings from Harmony Mobile Home Park and Collins
Aire Mobile Home Park (both located in the County).
Below is the project summary:
“This project addresses toxic community stress among low income and Hispanic/Latinx families living
in mobile home parks in Larimer County by increasing protective local policies for land
preservation/designation, facilitating resident ownership of property, and transforming the delivery of
community-based trauma informed care and supportive services to families with young children”
During my time at TFC/LF my role has changed, both roles are outlined below.
For a year and half (July 2018-January 2019) my position at TFC/LF was the Special Projects
Manager.
2.1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
3
My role during this time was to:
• Hold events with mobile home park residents to learn about community issues
• Hold events to educate mobile home park residents on Resident Rights
• Connect residents to elected officials and city/county staff to advocate for community
improvements
• Connect residents to leadership development opportunities
• Advise residents on advocacy and civic engagement opportunities
Due to the expansion of the program my role has shifted to the Policy and Grants Director. This role is
more removed from working directly with community members and serves as an advisory role to the
Mi Voz program.
My role now includes:
• Advise staff on advocacy opportunities for community members
• Work with elected officials on how to engage with residents
• Advise residents on civic engagement opportunities
• Bridge between government processes and mobile home park residents
• Expand organization’s presence in other policy processes
Due to the focus of the community advocacy efforts and my involvement, I am seeking an advisory
opinion from the Ethics review board as to my involvement with mobile home park land use and code
changes.
Question 1: Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does Councilmember
Gorgol’s employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent her from participating
in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone
district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities?
Relevant City Ethics Provisions:
The City Charter and City Code prohibit members of the City Council from participating in a decision if
the Councilmember has a financial interest or a personal interest in the decision. A copy of the Charter
provisions and City Code Section 2-568 are attached for reference.
1. Section 2-568(a) of the City Code defines and interprets several key terms used in these definitions:
(2) Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain.
(6) Different in kind from that experienced by the general public shall mean of a different type or nature
not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by
the public generally.
(7) Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an
intervening cause.
(8) Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss.
(13) Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
(15) Relative shall have the meaning given to this word in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which states:
Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by the
officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in and sharing
with the officer or employee the expenses of the household.
2.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
4
(17) Similarly situated citizens shall mean citizens in like circumstances having comparable legal rights
and obligations.
(18) Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent.
2. A financial interest is defined in Section 9(a) of the Charter Article IV as follows:
Financial interest means any interest equated with money or its equivalent. Financial interest shall not include:
a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an employee of a business, or as a holder of an
ownership interest in such business, in a decision of any public body, when the decision financially benefits or
otherwise affects such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the officer, employee
or relative;
b. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a nonsalaried officer or member of a nonprofit
corporation or association or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization in the holdings
of such corporation, association or organization;
c. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of public services when such services are
generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens, regardless of
whether such recipient is an officer, employee or relative;
d. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of a commercially reasonable loan made in
the ordinary course of business by a lending institution, in such lending institution;
e. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a shareholder in a mutual or common investment fund
in the holdings of such fund unless the shareholder actively participates in the management of such fund;
f. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a policyholder in an insurance company, a depositor in
a duly established savings association or bank, or a similar interest-holder, unless the discretionary act of such
person, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect the value of such policy,
deposit or similar interest;
g. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an owner of government-issued securities unless the
discretionary act of such owner, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect
the value of such securities; or
h. the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation received from the city for personal services
provided to the city as an officer or employee.
3. A personal interest is defined in Section 9(a) of the Charter Article IV as follows:
Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee,
or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or
experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general
public. Personal interest shall not include:
a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a member of a board, commission, committee, or
authority of another governmental entity or of a nonprofit corporation or association or of an educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization;
b. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has in the receipt of public services when such services are
generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens; or
c. the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation, benefits, or terms and conditions of his or
2.1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
5
her employment with the city.
NOTE: One ethics opinion from a prior Ethics Review Board review of the “personal interest” test in 2000
applying the currently applicable provision, Ethics Opinion 2000-1, is attached for reference and
consideration by the Board in evaluating how this provision applies to Councilmember Gorgol’s inquiry
and circumstances.
Question 2: Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does
Councilmember Gorgol’s employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent her
from participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of
manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured housing
communities?
Potentially Relevant State Ethics Provisions (all attached in full):
1. As defined for the purpose of the statutory ethics provisions:
i. Councilmembers are “local government officials” (as defined in Section 24-18-102(6)).
ii. "Financial interest" means a substantial interest held by an individual which is:
(a) An ownership interest in a business;
(b) A creditor interest in an insolvent business;
(c) An employment or a prospective employment for which negotiations have begun;
(d) An ownership interest in real or personal property;
(e) A loan or any other debtor interest; or
(f) A directorship or officership in a business. (Section 24-18-102(4))
2. Section 24-18-103, C.R.S., when read in conjunction with the rest of the statutory standards of conduct, is
interpreted to establish an ethical standard of conduct concerning activities that could allow covered
individuals to improperly benefit financially from their public office. However, it is general in nature and does
not specify a standard or rule to determine what is permissible.
3. Section 24-18-104, C.R.S., prohibits disclosure or use of confidential information acquired in the course of
official duties and acceptance of certain gifts.
4. Section 24-18-105, C.R.S., sets out ethical principles that are “intended as guides to conduct and do not
constitute violations as such of the public trust of office or employment in state or local government.”
i. Section 24-18-015(2) provides that:
(2) A … local government official … should not acquire or hold an interest in any business or undertaking
which he has reason to believe may be directly and substantially affected to its economic benefit by official
action to be taken by an agency over which he has substantial authority.
ii. Section 24-18-105(4) provides that:
(4) A …local government official …should not perform an official act directly and substantially affecting
a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when he has a substantial financial interest in
a competing firm or undertaking. (Emphasis added.)
5. Section 24-18-109(2), C.R.S., provides that a local government official or employee shall not (in relevant
part):
2.1
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
6
i. Engage in a substantial financial transaction for his private business purposes with a person whom he
inspects or supervises in the course of his official duties (§ 24-18-109(2)(a)); or
ii. Perform an official act directly and substantially affecting to its economic benefit a business or other
undertaking in which he either has a substantial financial interest or is engaged as counsel,
consultant, representative or agent (§ 24-18-109(2)(b));
iii. A member of a governing body of a local government who has a personal or private interest in any
matter proposed or pending before the governing body shall disclose such interest and refrain from
participating in the decision unless necessary to obtain a quorum (§ 24-18-109(3));
1. It is unclear whether the reference to “personal or private interest” in this subparagraph of Section
109 is intended to reference back to the specified types of interests described in Section 109, or to
introduce some other additional limitation. The term is not defined or discussed, so it is reasonable
to interpret this provision as setting out the requirements for acting when one of the personal or
private interests described in Section 109 is identified.
6. Article XXIX of the Colorado constitution – also referred to as “Amendment 41,” sets out limits for state
and local officers and employees, by establishing limits on the acceptance of gifts and forming an Independent
Ethics Commission to hear complaints about conduct of covered officials. While the amendment applies to
municipalities in general, Section 7 provides, “Any county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter
provisions with respect to ethics matters that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this
article. The requirements of this article shall not apply to home rule counties or home rule municipalities that
have adopted charters, ordinances, or resolutions that address the matters covered by this article.” (Emphasis
added.)
Since the enactment of Amendment 41, it has been generally understood that Section 7 exempts home-rule
cities that have enacted their own local charter and code ethics provisions, like Fort Collins, from its
provisions. A copy of Amendment 41 (Article XXIX) is attached to this Agenda Item Summary for
reference.
In September 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-063, finding and determining that the City’s
Charter and Code adequately and appropriately address those matters covered by Amendment 41, that no
further action by the City Council is warranted or necessary in order to further the purposes of Amendment
41 or address the matters contained therein, and that the requirements of Amendment 41 shall not be
applicable to the City of Fort Collins.
ATTACHMENTS:_________________________________________________________________________
1. Statement from Emily Gorgol
2. Grant and Policy Job Description
3. City Code Section 2-569
4. City Code Section 2-568(a)
5. City Charter Section 9(a)
6. Resolution 80-2000 and Ethics Opinion 2000-1
7. CRS Section 24-18-102(4) and (6)
8. CRS Section 24-18-103
9. CRS Section 24-18-104
10. CRS Section 24-18-105
11. CRS Section 24-18-109
12. Article XXIX of Colorado Constitution (also known as “Amendment 41”)
13. Resolution 2010-063
2.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 24, 2020
Ethics Review Board
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
Consideration of the July 8, 2020, request by Councilmember Emily Gorgol for an advisory review and
opinion by the Ethics Review Board pursuant to City Code Section 2-569(d)(2) regarding her
participation in Council’s upcoming decisions regarding manufactured housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is continued consideration of the July 8, 2020, request by Councilmember
Emily Gorgol for an advisory review and opinion by the Ethics Review Board pursuant to City Code
Section 2-569(d)(2) regarding the following questions related to her participation in Council’s upcoming
decisions regarding manufactured housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and role at
the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s)
regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of
particular manufactured housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and role
at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s decision(s)
regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning of
particular manufactured housing communities?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Ethics Review Board (“ERB” or the “Board”) should consider Councilmember Gorgol’s questions
in light of the City Charter and Code, relevant ethics opinions, and applicable State ethics laws, and
information obtained from Councilmember Gorgol regarding her circumstances and received in prior
ERB meetings on July 15 and July 17 regarding this item, and formulate an advisory opinion.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A copy of the agenda materials provided to the ERB for its July 15 meeting regarding this matter,
with an updated checklist identifying the applicable ethics provisions, are attached for reference.
In follow up to ERB discussion on July 15, a draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02 with two options was
provided for Board consideration on July 17. A copy of that draft, dated July 17, 2020, is also
attached for reference.
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
2
For easy reference, Councilmember Gorgol’s inquiry expressly relates to the following anticipated
Council decisions:
(1) Scheduled for Council consideration in July and August is the proposed adoption of
amendments to the City’s Land Use Code establishing a Manufactured Housing zone
district to preserve and maintain manufactured housing (mobile home parks).
(2) Assuming such amendments are adopted, the Council may subsequently consider
ordinances to rezone properties into this zone district (mainly existing manufactured
housing/mobile home parks) after such proposed rezonings had been considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to Council.
In addition, Council may consider, and similar ethics questions may be raised by, the following:
(3) If City Plan amendments are needed to reflect the policies underlying the Manufactured
Housing zone district, Council would consider those amendments after consideration and
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board.
(4) Council enacted a moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured housing communities in
August 2019 and that moratorium will terminate at the end of August 2020 unless extended by
the Council. Council may wish to consider an ordinance extending the moratorium and, if
so, consideration of an extension would likely occur in July or August.
(5) Council has asked staff to prepare for Council consideration City Code changes to protect
the interests of manufactured housing/mobile home park residents from landlord
practices related to utility bills and arrangements, property maintenance and leasing practices
and other similar matters, including potential licensing of manufactured housing communities.
To the extent the advisory opinion addresses each of these potential Council decisions, it will assist
Councilmember Gorgol in evaluating her involvement in them as they come forward.
At the July 17 meeting, the Board’s discussion mainly focused on:
(1) What kind of impact or relationship do these upcoming manufactured housing decisions
have to Councilmember Gorgol’s current and prior roles at The Family Center/La Familia
(“TFC/LF”);
(2) Do those impacts/relationships suggest that Councilmember Gorgol will experience some
direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from the general public as a
result of one or more of the Council decisions to come (i.e., does she have a personal
interest in any of these decisions);
(3) Do those impacts/relationships suggest that Councilmember Gorgol has a “personal or
private interest” in these Council decisions under § 24-18-109(3), Colorado Revised
Statutes (“C.R.S.”); and
(4) Are there other considerations (such as an “appearance of conflict” or bias/lack of
impartiality in quasi-judicial decision-making) to be considered in evaluating whether
Councilmember can properly participate in these decisions.
2.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
3
To assist the Board in further working through these questions, each is discussed below:
UQuestion 1:U What kind of impact or relationship do these upcoming manufactured housing
decisions have to Councilmember Gorgol’s current and prior roles at The Family Center/La
Familia (“TFC/LF”)?
The Board has inquired of Councilmember Gorgol and discussed her roles and responsibilities at
TFC/LF during its prior meetings. There may be continued confusion or uncertainty about the work
she has done and is doing at TFC/LF and her working relationships with stakeholders directly
interested in the manufactured housing related decisions Council will be making.
This information is critical to the evaluation of whether Councilmember Gorgol has a personal or
private interest or bias that bars her participation in any of the Council’s decisions. It may be helpful
to further develop the Board’s understanding of these facts, considering:
a) Is Councilmember Gorgol’s work at TFC/LF advanced by actions the Council will be
taking and, if so, will that result in Ua direct and substantial impact to herU?
b) What specific interest does Councilmember Gorgol’s work at TFC/LF give her in these
Council decisions?
c) Does Councilmember Gorgol’s work for TFC/LF create a significant and close
relationship with key stakeholders in any particular rezoning decision(s) that will
interfere with her ability to be an impartial decision-maker?
UQuestion 2:U Do those impacts/relationships suggest that Councilmember Gorgol will
experience some benefit or detriment different in kind from the general public as a result of
one or more of the Council decisions to come (i.e., does she have a personal interest in any of
these decisions)?
The Board must evaluate, based on the information about Councilmember Gorgol’s roles and
responsibilities with TFC/LF, whether she will experience some benefit or detriment different in kind
from the general public as a result of any of the Council decisions under consideration.
City Charter and City Code prohibit members of the City Council from participating in a decision if the
Councilmember has a Upersonal interestU in the decision.
Under City Charter Article IV, Section 9(a), a Upersonal interestU is:
Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an
officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a
reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some Udirect and substantial benefit or
detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general publicU.
Related key terms (from Section 2-568(a) of the City Code) include:
(2) Benefit = an advantage or gain.
2.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
4
(6) Different in kind from that experienced by the general public = of a different type or nature
not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that
experienced by the public generally.
(7) Direct = resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an
intervening cause.
(8) Detriment = disadvantage, injury, damage or loss.
(13) Public services = city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
(15) Relative = the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by the
officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in and
sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household.
(18) Substantial = more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent.
If the Board finds that any policy or zoning decision Council will make about manufactured
housing will:
~have an impact on Councilmember Gorgol that will be different from the impact on the
public generally AND
~that impact will be direct and substantial,
then the Board should conclude that Councilmember Gorgol has a personal interest in that
decision.
UQuestion 3U: Do those impacts/relationships suggest that Councilmember Gorgol has a
“personal or private interest” in these Council decisions under § 24-18-109(3), C.R.S.?
The Board must evaluate, based on the information about Councilmember Gorgol’s roles and
responsibilities with TFC/LF, whether she has a Upersonal or private interestU in any of the Council
decisions under consideration.
Under Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-18-109(3), a member of a governing body of a local
government who has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the
governing body shall disclose such interest and refrain from participating in the decision unless
necessary to obtain a quorum.
Although the key term from this statute “personal or private interest” is not defined, guidance from
other uses of this term in related Colorado law may be helpful. As noted in a 2014 Colorado Lawyer
article describing this statute (an excerpt of which is attached), this “standard of conduct” was likely
adapted from a provision of the Colorado constitution that is applicable to members of the General
Assembly (Colo. Constitution Art. V, § 43). As described in the article, the limits focus primarily on
financial relationships in determining whether an impermissible personal or private interest exists.
In light of the relationship between this provision and the constitutional limit on members of the General
Assembly, the way the constitutional limit has been applied to the General Assembly may provide
some useful guidance in considering the meaning of “personal or private interest.” Attached to this
Agenda Item Summary are materials further elaborating on this limit on members of the General
Assembly: Joint Rule 42, which states a legislative interpretation of the limit, and two excerpts from
2.2
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
5
materials prepared and published by the Office of Legislative Legal Services to help with applying it.
To summarize, Joint Rule 42 provides that:
a) If the passage or failure of a measure will result in the legislator deriving a direct
financial or pecuniary benefit that is greater than any such benefit derived by or shared
by other person’s in the legislator’s profession, occupation, industry or region, the
legislator is considered to have a personal, private or financial interest in the measure.
b) If the interest a legislator has in a measure affects the entire membership of a class to
which the legislator belongs, the interest is not deemed to be a personal, private or
financial interest.
Merriam-Webster’s online definition of the term “pecuniary” is: 1. consisting of or measured in money;
such as pecuniary aid pecuniary gifts; 2: of or relating to money
Examples interpreting the constitutional limit on the General Assembly and Joint Rule 42 are provided
in the attached; none directly correspond to Councilmember Gorgol’s situation.
In the review of recusal decisions by judges in Colorado courts, the Colorado Supreme Court has also
articulated a distinction between a “private interest” and a “public interest.” The Court has held that “a
public interest is one shared by other citizens, and a judge’s interest as a citizen in a public issue is
not a basis per se for removal as a trial judge. . . . If the trial judge’s decision would affect him in a
pecuniary way, however, this constitutes a private interest” (Zoline v. Telluride Lodge Assn, 732 P.2d
635, 639-640 (Colo. 1987)). While the standards for recusal of a judge are arguably more sensitive to
potential conflicts than would apply to a legislator, this distinction is a helpful one in evaluating whether
Councilmember Gorgol’s interest in manufactured housing issues is a public interest or a private
interest.
Under this analysis, if the Board finds that any policy or zoning decision Council will make
about manufactured housing will:
~result in a direct financial or monetary impact to Councilmember Gorgol that will be
greater than the impact on others in her profession, occupation, industry or region AND
~that impact will not affect the entire membership of that profession, occupation,
industry or region,
then the Board should conclude that Councilmember Gorgol has a “personal or private interest
in that decision under Section 24-18-109(3).
UQuestion 4:U Are there other considerations (such as an “appearance of conflict” or bias/lack
of impartiality in quasi-judicial decision-making) to be considered in evaluating whether
Councilmember can properly participate in these decisions?
Although there is no City Charter or Code provision precluding a Councilmember from participating in
a decision due to the “appearance of a conflict” if the specific ethics standards that apply are met,
Councilmembers do on occasion recuse themselves from an item by leaving the Council meeting for
the item when that Councilmember is uncomfortable participating due to the potential for or
appearance of a conflict.
2.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
6
In addition, where acting as a quasi-judicial decisionmaker, a Councilmember has an obligation to
consider carefully whether his or her relationships, particularly business or professional relationships
result in a bias or inability to be impartial in a quasi-judicial decision. As described on page 3 of the
attached Colorado Lawyer article:
Often, opponents or proponents in a public hearing will accuse a board member of
having a private interest or conflict simply because he or she is acquainted with the
applicant. However, the Standards focus primarily on financial relationships in
determining whether an impermissible personal or private interest exists.
Following are examples of relationships that ordinarily would not disqualify a board
member from acting in his or her quasi-judicial capacity. They reflect the practical
reality of life in a small community and, standing alone, should not prevent a board
member from voting on an application. Bearing in mind that the Standards are
primarily concerned with financial interest, it is important to note that these kinds of
fact patterns lack the potential of personal financial gain or loss:
1. The member lives next door to the applicant;
2. The member and the applicant know and like (or dislike) each other,
are friends, go to the same church, have memberships at the same
club, or play golf together.
3. The member is related by blood or marriage to the applicant, but has
no financial connection or potential of experiencing financial gain or
loss. However, to the extent the blood or marriage relationship is
immediate (for instance, husband and wife or father and son), the
member should step down. Even though there may be not financial
connection, the relationship is so close that a conflict of interest would
be presumed.
The City does have an interest in assuring that those making quasi-judicial decisions have carefully
considered whether they have a bias or will not be able to be impartial. In those instances, the
individual should seriously consider not participating in the decision.
If the Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol has relationships, particularly business or professional
relationships, that suggest she cannot be unbiased and impartial in a particular quasi-judicial decision,
such as a particular rezoning matter, the Board may choose to recommend that she recuse herself
from that matter on that basis.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 15, 2020
2. Updated Ethics Checklist
3. July 17, 2020, Draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02
4. Excerpt from 2004 Colorado Lawyer Article re Quasi-Judges
5. Colorado General Assembly Joint Rule 42 and related guidance
6. July 24, 2020, Draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02, OPTION A
7. July 24, 2020, Draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02, OPTION B
8. July 24, 2020, Draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02, OPTION C
2.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Ethics Review Board Agenda Item Summary, July 24, 2020 (9343 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-070
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING ETHICS OPINION NO. 2020-02
OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD ADVISING COUNCILMEMBER
EMILY GORGOL IN RESPONSE TO HER REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION
WHEREAS, the City Council has established an Ethics Review Board (the “Board”)
consisting of designated members of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Board is empowered under Section 2-569 of the City Code to render
advisory opinions and recommendations regarding actual or hypothetical situations of
Councilmembers or board and commission members of the City; and after review and
investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or
inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of
state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected
board or commission concerning the same; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2020, Councilmember Emily Gorgol requested that the Board
consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the following questions related to her
participation in Council’s upcoming decisions regarding manufactured housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and
role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s
decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2)
the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities; and
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment
and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City
Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone
district; or (2) the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities; and
WHEREAS, the Board, comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens, chair,
Councilmember Ken Summers and Councilmember Julie Pignataro, met on July 15, July 17, and
July 24, 2020, to consider Councilmember Gorgol’s inquiry; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its review and discussions, the Board unanimously
adopted and issued an ethics opinion, Ethics Opinion 2020-02, describing and explaining its
advisory conclusions and recommendations to Councilmember Gorgol; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-569(e) of the City Code provides that all advisory opinions and
recommendations of the Board be placed on the agenda for the next special or regular City
Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt such opinions
and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the opinion of the Board and wishes to adopt
the same.
Packet Pg. 59
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Opinion No. 2020-02 of the Ethics Review Board, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A,” has been submitted to
and reviewed by the City Council, and the Council hereby accepts and adopts the opinion
contained therein.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
this 28th day of July, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 60
2020-02
OPINION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
July 24, 2020
The City Council Ethics Review Board (“the Board”) met on July 15, July 17, and July 24, 2020,
to consider and render an advisory opinion addressing two questions submitted to the Board by
Councilmember Emily Gorgol on July 8, 2020. Councilmember Gorgol asked the following
questions related to her participation in Council’s upcoming decisions regarding manufactured
housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and
role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s
decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2)
the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and
role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s
decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2)
the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities?
Background
Under City Code Section 2-569, councilmembers may present to the Council’s Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. Upon completion of its review, the Ethics
Review Board adopts an Ethics Opinion that is then presented to the City Council for consideration
and possible adoption by the Council by resolution.
The local ethics provisions considered as part of this inquiry are City Charter Article IV, Section
9(a), regarding conflicts of interest, and City Code Section 2-568(a), establishing related
definitions. The state ethics provisions considered as part of this inquiry include the following
Colorado Revised Statutes: Sections 24-18-102 through -105 and Section 24-18-109. The Board
also considered the applicability of Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution (referred to as
“Amendment 41”). These provisions are discussed and examined below as applicable.
Councilmember Gorgol’s Position and Role at The Family Center/La Familia
Councilmember Gorgol is employed by a local nonprofit, The Family Center/La Familia
(TFC/LF), as the Policy and Grants Director, a position that is primarily funded by the Health
Disparities Grant Program administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, with additional grant funding from the Larimer County Department of Health and
Environment’s Cancer, Cardiovascular, and Chronic Pulmonary Disease Grant Program. All of
this funding originates from the state tobacco tax revenues and is dependent upon completion of
work deliverables not focused on specific outcomes but rather on completion of contacts and
EXHIBIT A
1
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 2
meetings with the subjects of the project, including Mi Voz (My Voice) program staff and
participants. Mi Voz is a community-led project working with Spanish-speaking residents in
mobile home parks to address housing insecurity through civic engagement, leadership
development and advocacy.
According to the summary provided:
The project addresses toxic community stress among low income and
Hispanic/Latinx families living in mobile home parks in Larimer County by
increasing protective local policies for land preservation/designation, facilitating
resident ownership of property, and transforming the delivery of community-based
trauma informed care and supportive services to families with young children.
This Mi Voz work is directed to three particular mobile home parks (Hickory Mobile Home Park
in Fort Collins and Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park and Parklane Mobile Home Park in Larimer
County), and also includes community members from Harmony Mobile Home Park and Collins
Aire Mobile Home Park (both also in Larimer County). Her work is mainly advisory to the Mi
Voz program, and involves:
• Advising staff on advocacy opportunities for community members;
• Working with elected officials on how to engage with residents;
• Advising residents on civic engagement opportunities;
• Bridging between government processes and mobile home park residents; and
• Expanding the presence of TFC/LF in other policy processes.
In her prior role as Special Projects Manager at TFC/LF from July 2018 to January 2020,
Councilmember Gorgol was more directly engaged in outreach and education for mobile home
park residents, and she was responsible for:
• Holding events with mobile home park residents to learn about community issues;
• Holding events to educate mobile home park residents on “Resident Rights;”
• Connecting residents to elected officials and city/county staff to advocate for community
improvements;
• Connecting residents to leadership development opportunities; and
• Advising residents on advocacy and engagement opportunities.
Council Decisions Regarding Manufactured Housing
Councilmember Gorgol’s inquiry expressly relates to the following anticipated Council decisions:
• Scheduled for Council consideration in July and August is the proposed adoption of
amendments to the City’s Land Use Code establishing a Manufactured Housing zone
district to preserve and maintain manufactured housing (mobile home parks).
1
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 3
• Assuming such amendments are adopted, the Council may subsequently consider
ordinances to rezone properties into this zone district (mainly existing manufactured
housing/mobile home parks) after such proposed rezonings had been considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to Council.
In addition, Council may consider, and a similar ethics question may be raised by, the following:
• If City Plan amendments are needed in order to reflect the policies underlying the
Manufactured Housing zone district, Council would consider those amendments after
consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board.
• Council enacted a moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured housing communities in
August 2019 and that moratorium will terminate at the end of August 2020 unless extended
by the Council. Council may wish to consider an ordinance extending the moratorium
and if so consideration of an extension would likely occur in July or August.
• Council has asked staff to prepare for Council consideration City Code changes to protect
the interests of manufactured housing/mobile home park residents from landlord practices
related to utility bills and arrangements, property maintenance and leasing practices and
other similar matters, including potential licensing of manufactured housing communities.
This Opinion addresses each of these potential Council decisions below.
Conflicts of Interest under the City Charter
Article IV, Section 9(b)(3) of the City Charter requires a Councilmember to disclose upon
discovery any financial interest or personal interest in a Council decision and to refrain from
voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as an
officer or employee.
Article IV, Section 9(a) of the City Charter defines the key terms financial interest and personal
interest, as follows:
Financial interest means any interest equated with money or its equivalent.
Financial interest shall not include:
a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an employee of a
business, or as a holder of an ownership interest in such business, in a decision
of any public body, when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects
such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the
officer, employee or relative;
. . .
1
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 4
Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of
which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in
the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and
substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the
general public. . . .
For the purpose of interpreting and applying these provisions, the Council has adopted in
Section 2-568(a) of the City Code the following relevant definitions:
(2) Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain.
(6) Different in kind from that experienced by the general public shall mean of a different type
or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from
that experienced by the public generally.
(7) Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not
from an intervening cause.
(8) Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss.
(13) Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
(15) Relative shall have the meaning given to this word in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV,
which states:
Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by
the officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in
and sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household.
(17) Similarly situated citizens shall mean citizens in like circumstances having comparable legal
rights and obligations.
(18) Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent.
State Law Ethics Provisions
1. Section 24-18-103, C.R.S., when read in conjunction with the rest of the statutory standards
of conduct, is interpreted to establish an ethical standard of conduct concerning activities that
could allow covered individuals to improperly benefit financially from their public office.
However, it is general in nature and does not specify a standard or rule to determine what is
permissible.
2. Section 24-18-104, C.R.S., prohibits disclosure or use of confidential information acquired in
the course of official duties and acceptance of certain gifts.
3. Section 24-18-105, C.R.S., sets out ethical principles that are “intended as guides to conduct
and do not constitute violations as such of the public trust of office or employment in state or
local government.”
1
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 5
i. Section 24-18-015(2) provides that:
(2) A … local government official … should not acquire or hold an interest in any business
or undertaking which he has reason to believe may be directly and substantially affected to
its economic benefit by official action to be taken by an agency over which he has
substantial authority.
ii. Section 24-18-105(4) provides that:
(4) A …local government official …should not perform an official act directly and
substantially affecting a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when he
has a substantial financial interest in a competing firm or undertaking. (Emphasis added.)
4. Section 24-18-109(2), C.R.S., provides that a local government official or employee shall not
(in relevant part):
i. Engage in a substantial financial transaction for his private business purposes with a person
whom he inspects or supervises in the course of his official duties (§ 24-18-109(2)(a)); or
ii. Perform an official act directly and substantially affecting to its economic benefit a business
or other undertaking in which he either has a substantial financial interest or is engaged
as counsel, consultant, representative or agent (§ 24-18-109(2)(b));
5. Section 24-18-109(3), C.R.S., provides that a member of a governing body of a local
government who has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before
the governing body shall disclose such interest and refrain from participating in the decision
unless necessary to obtain a quorum.
6. Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution – also referred to as “Amendment 41,” sets
out limits for state and local officers and employees, by establishing limits on the acceptance
of gifts and forming an Independent Ethics Commission to hear complaints about conduct of
covered officials. While the amendment applies to municipalities in general, Section 7
provides, “Any county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect
to ethics matters that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this article. The
requirements of this article shall not apply to home rule counties or home rule municipalities
that have adopted charters, ordinances, or resolutions that address the matters covered by this
article.” (Emphasis added.)
In September 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-063, finding and determining
that the City’s Charter and Code adequately and appropriately address those matters covered
by Amendment 41, that no further action by the City Council is warranted or necessary in order
to further the purposes of Amendment 41 or address the matters contained therein, and that the
requirements of Amendment 41 shall not be applicable to the City of Fort Collins.
1
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 6
Application of Conflicts/Ethics Provisions to Council Decisions
Financial Interest Under City Charter
Considering the circumstances presented by Councilmember Gorgol, the Board readily concluded
that there is not a financial interest, as defined in the City Charter, presented by any of the identified
Council decisions regarding manufactured homes. This is because there is no connection between
the funding for her position at TFC/LF and the decisions, nor any identifiable indirect connection,
so there is no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to her.
State Ethics Provisions
Similarly, the state law ethics provisions each relate to personal or private interests in which some
financial or pecuniary impact may be experienced by a local government official from official
actions. The Board did not identify any direct or indirect financial or economic impact to
Councilmember Gorgol or her employer TFC/LF that may result from the identified Council
decisions. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the state law ethics provisions do not bar
participation by Councilmember Gorgol in the Council decisions identified above.
Personal Interest Under City Charter
As is frequently the case, the primary focus of the Board’s attention and discussion has been the
question of whether Councilmember Gorgol has a personal interest under the City Charter in any
of the identified Council decisions. In general, there was concern expressed by each member of
the Board arising from how Councilmember Gorgol’s work appears to be narrowly focused on a
part of the community that almost by definition has an interest in the outcome of Council’s
decisions regarding manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks, in a way that relates
directly to the issues that Council will be considering and creates at least some appearance of a
conflict or personal interest.
The work Councilmember Gorgol does for TFC/LF is focused on and emphasizes promoting
effective advocacy and involvement by manufactured housing/mobile home park residents in
policy decisions. The members of the Board are concerned about how directly this work relates
to the Council’s decisions on:
(1) establishing a manufactured housing zone district;
(2) deciding whether to and which properties to rezone into the new district if it is
established;
(3) determining whether to extend the existing moratorium on redevelopment of
manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks;
(4) amending comprehensive plan documents for the express purpose of preserving
manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks; and
1
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 7
(5) enacting Code provisions intended specifically to protect tenants/occupants of
manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks.
The Board acknowledged that it is not uncommon for individual councilmembers to work with
members of the public to assist them in navigating the policymaking and decision-making
process and advocating for their interests. In addition, while Councilmember Gorgol does this as
part of her paid employment, her overall success or continuing interests in her position and in
working with manufactured housing/mobile home park community residents does not depend on
their success in promoting their interests and succeeding in the policymaking and decision-
making processes. For this reason, the Board has concluded that Councilmember Gorgol
generally will not experience a direct and substantial benefit or detriment of a different nature
from that experienced by the general public as a result of the Council’s decisions listed above as
number (1) and numbers (3) through (5).
However, with respect to the number (2), rezoning of particular properties, the Board is
concerned that the role Councilmember Gorgol has had working directly with and promoting the
advocacy of residents of manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks presents a more
direct and substantial link that is sufficient to constitute a personal interest and potential bias in
those rezoning decisions. Consequently, the Board recommends that Councilmember Gorgol
declare a conflict of interest in individual rezoning matters for manufactured housing
community/mobile home park properties whose residents she has worked with directly as part of
her work for TFC/LF. This means that for these items she should refrain from voting on,
attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a
Councilmember, including participation in related work session and executive session
discussions.
Board Conclusions and Recommendations:
1. Councilmember Gorgol Does Not Have a Financial Interest in the Identified
Council Decisions.
The Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol does not have a financial interest,
as defined in the City Charter, in any of the Council decisions identified above,
based on the facts as presented in this review.
2. Councilmember Gorgol Does Not Have a State Law Ethics Bar From
Participating in the Identified Council Decisions.
The Board finds that state law ethics provisions to do not bar Councilmember
Gorgol from participating in any of the Council decisions identified above, based
on the facts as presented in this review.
3. Councilmember Gorgol Has a Personal Interest in Some of the Identified Council
Decisions.
1
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 24, 2020
Page 8
The Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol generally will not experience a
direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that
experienced by the general public as a result of the Council’s decisions for the
above identified decisions, except for the rezoning of individual properties. With
respect to the rezoning of particular properties, the Board finds that
Councilmember Gorgol has a personal interest, as defined in the City Charter,
and potential bias. Consequently, the Board recommends that Councilmember
Gorgol declare a conflict of interest in individual rezoning matters for
manufactured housing community/mobile home park properties whose residents
she has worked with directly as part of her work for TFC/LF. This means that
for those items she should refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or
otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a Councilmember,
including participation in related work session and executive session discussions.
This advisory opinion was reviewed and approved by Councilmembers Kristin Stephens, Ken
Summers and Julie Pignataro, as the designated regular members of the Ethics Review Board, at a
meeting of the Ethics Review Board on July 24, 2020. Pursuant to Section 2-569(e) of the City
Code, this opinion and recommendation is to be immediately filed with the City Clerk and made
available for public inspection. Additionally, this opinion shall be considered by the City Council
at its adjourned meeting on July 28, 2020.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2020.
____________________________________
Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney
1
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit A (9344 : Ethics Opinion-Gorgol RES)
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Kristin Stephens, District 4, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Julie Pignataro, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Emily Gorgol, District 6 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
July 28, 2020
(After the Adjourned Council meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m.)
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update. (staff: Ryan Mounce; 10 minute presentation; 40 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review and discuss issues relating to the potential rezoning of
properties to the forthcoming Manufactured Housing (M-H) zone district, including the influence of
existing land use policy and a possible extension of the manufactured housing redevelopment
moratorium.
2. Natural Areas and Local Agriculture (staff: Julia Feder, Zoe Shark; 10 minute presentation, 30
minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to discuss potential conservation agriculture projects on lands acquired
and managed by the City’s Natural Areas Department (the Department). Pending Council’s advice
and feedback, in coming months staff will return to Council for its review of several leases associated
with potential conservation agriculture partnerships. This item will provide an overview of
conservation agriculture and a description of how conservation agriculture can help the Department
improve its land stewardship. It will discuss how the Department could align agricultural management
practices with its mission and support the City’s goals related to local, sustainable agriculture.
A conservation agriculture approach would represent a shift to the current land management
methodology on several natural areas. This shift will better reflect the 2014 Natural Areas Master
Plan as compared to current agricultural operations (monocropping and haying). Moreover, as one
of the largest landowners in and around Fort Collins, the City can play a role in helping the
community achieve its goals related to the local food system as articulated in City Plan.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
• ANNOUNCEMENTS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
July 28, 2020
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and discuss issues relating to the potential rezoning of properties to the
forthcoming Manufactured Housing (M-H) zone district, including the influence of existing land use policy and a
possible extension of the manufactured housing redevelopment moratorium.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should properties designated as commercial in City Plan or neighborhood plans be considered for rezoning to
the new manufactured housing district?
2. What are Councilmember’s views on extending the manufactured housing redevelopment moratorium?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Both City Plan and the Strategic Plan identify policies and objectives to preserve manufactured housing and
enhance the equitable treatment of manufactured housing residents. Council has also identified manufactured
housing preservation and residents’ rights as a priority, and in August 2019, a 12-month moratorium was adopted
limiting the City’s acceptance of any development application which would result in the loss of units within mobile
home parks while additional preservation tools and residents’ rights strategies are explored.
Since the adoption of the moratorium, staff has been finalizing new preservation tools and resident rights
protections. These efforts include Land Use Code updates to create a new Manufactured Housing (M-H) zone
district and changes to the Municipal Code to clarify and enhance residents’ rights related to retaliation
protections, tree maintenance, utility billing practices, and more. If the forthcoming Land Use Code changes are
adopted, existing manufactured housing communities will be eligible to be considered for rezoning to the new
zone district. Staff is seeking additional direction relating to which manufactured housing communities should be
considered for rezoning based on guidance provided by the City’s comprehensive plan and relevant subarea
plans.
Manufactured Housing Zone District - Rezoning Criteria
Staff previously discussed the design of the new manufactured housing zone district with Council at a work
session on April 28, 2020. (Attachment 1) Staff shared that the new zone district would create a new preservation
tool for manufactured housing communities and reduce the likelihood of park closure due to redevelopment. This
is achieved primarily by limiting the types and intensity of certain land uses available to properties within the zone
district. While the new M-H zone district creates a new preservation tool, the preservation goals of the district
would only come into effect once properties are rezoned.
If the forthcoming M-H zone district is adopted by Council, the City may initiate and consider rezoning properties
containing manufactured housing communities to the new district. At the April 28, 2020 work session, staff
described several evaluation criteria used in the 2013 Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Strategy
report on potential manufactured housing communities to include in a new manufactured housing zone district.
The report included criteria such as the size of a community, the percentage of owner-occupied units and whether
1
Packet Pg. 3
July 28, 2020 Page 2
a property was previously included in the City’s former mobile home park zone districts. Some criteria may be less
relevant when compared to the overarching goals for manufactured housing preservation and most properties
containing manufactured housing communities should be considered for rezoning.
An additional set of evaluation criteria staff wishes to highlight is the land use direction and guidance provided by
the City’s land use policy documents, including City Plan and relevant neighborhood and subarea plans. The
City’s Land Use Code requires quasi-judicial rezonings to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or
warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding the subject property.
Existing Land Use Guidance for Manufactured Housing Communities
City Plan provides land use guidance through a combination of policies related to the community’s growth
framework and broad illustrations of development patterns for different types and intensities of land uses on the
Structure Plan map. In addition, the City has adopted several neighborhood and subarea plans as elements of
City Plan, which provide more specific land use guidance for neighborhoods and corridors within the community.
Most manufactured housing communities in the City are zoned residentially and designated on the Structure Plan
or within relevant subarea plans for low and medium intensity residential development. A potential rezoning to the
new M-H district for these properties aligns with their existing land use and intensity designations and would also
promote the comprehensive plan’s growth framework and housing policies for the general location of residential
development and to preserve a type of housing underrepresented in the community’s overall housing stock.
Several manufactured housing communities are instead designated for commercial/mixed-use development on
the Structure Plan map and in relevant subarea plans. In general, these designations provide long-term guidance
for development patterns of greater intensity and variety than what is proposed as part of the M-H zone district.
The preservation goals of the M-H district may also conflict with some of the policies and goals found in these
plans which identify commercial areas for infill and intensification opportunities, promote land consolidation and
redevelopment along certain corridors to support infrastructure and transportation improvements, or to support a
broader mix of land uses and services.
Rezoning Options
Based on current land use guidance in City Plan and relevant subarea plans, rezoning of properties containing
manufactured housing communities with residential designations could be considered. These properties represent
approximately 88% of all manufactured housing units in the community and their designations in the
comprehensive plan and subarea plans are consistent with the design and intent of the new M-H district. For
commercially designated properties, a rezoning to the M-H district is not consistent with the current guidance
provided by City Plan or neighborhood plans and there existing zoning would likely remain in place.
If Council desires to consider rezoning the commercially designated properties to the M-H district, staff could
initiate a process to review and amend the comprehensive plan and relevant subarea plans. Such a review would
investigate the possibility of changing land use designations and/or neighborhood-specific policy goals based on
additional stakeholder input and updated neighborhood conditions since the original adoption of these plans.
Updates to City Plan or a neighborhood plan require a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and
Council adoption of an ordinance. The timeline to conduct additional stakeholder engagement and evaluate what
may be competing policy priorities is likely to take a minimum of several months and could significantly lengthen
the overall process to rezone properties to the new M-H district. This timeline would further push the rezoning
process beyond the expiration of the manufactured housing redevelopment moratorium, currently scheduled to
end on August 30, 2020.
Manufactured Housing Redevelopment Moratorium
In August 2019, Council adopted a 12-month moratorium on the City’s acceptance of any development
application that would result in the loss of units in a manufactured housing community. This moratorium was
implemented to allow time for the City to consider and implement new preservation and residents’ rights
1
Packet Pg. 4
July 28, 2020 Page 3
strategies. Following the implementation of the moratorium, staff began researching options and best practices
and presented initial findings to Council at a work session in December 2019.
Council provided guidance for staff to pursue a new manufactured housing zone district and staff originally
targeted implementation of the district and consideration of property rezonings in late spring 2020. Development
of the new zone district standards and initial outreach activities took place in January and February, however,
beginning in March, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted opportunities to meet with stakeholders, including input
from boards and commissions, which had begun to cancel their monthly meetings. At a work session update on
April 28, 2020 staff shared the timeline for the new zone district and rezoning process had become highly
uncertain due to disruptions caused by the pandemic.
With the resumption of board and commission meetings in early summer and new procedures in place for virtual
engagement activities, staff recommenced outreach efforts and is initiating the Land Use Code adoption process
to create the new M-H district. Upon adoption of the Land Use Code changes, staff is also prepared to begin a
City-initiated process to consider applying the new M-H district to properties through rezoning. The following
meetings/hearings are required to implement the new zone district and complete the rezoning process:
Adopt Land Use Code Changes creating the M-H zone district
• Planning and Zoning Board: recommendation to Council
• Council First Reading
• Council Second Reading
(Potential) Update City Plan and Subarea Plans and review alignment for commercial property rezonings
• Planning and Zoning Board recommendation
• Council First Reading
• Council Second Reading
Rezoning of properties to M-H zone district
• Approval of Council exemption request to allow for quasi-judicial rezoning proceedings to occur using remote
hearings
• 14-day written notice to property owners prior to P&Z meeting
• Planning and Zoning Board recommendation
• 15-day newspaper notice prior to Council
• Council First Reading
• Council Second Reading
These events must occur largely in a linear fashion. Each step should be completed before the next can begin.
Staff anticipates the minimum time to fully complete the process to create the new M-H district and consider
property rezonings is approximately two and a half months. This timeline would be extended further if City Plan
and subarea plans need to be amended to consider rezoning commercial properties. Based on this schedule, the
final portions of the rezoning process will occur after the manufactured housing redevelopment moratorium
expires on August 30, 2020.
While staff is not aware of any imminent plans by property owners for redevelopment of a manufactured housing
community, the expiration of the moratorium before the rezoning process is completed creates a risk that a
property owner could submit a redevelopment proposal under current zoning and absent the preservation goals of
the new M-H district.
Council could consider an extension to the moratorium to allow the overall rezoning process to complete fully
within the redevelopment protections afforded by the moratorium. An Ordinance extending the moratorium would
require two readings before Council and staff would bring its consideration forward in August prior to the current
expiration on August 30. If Council wishes to consider an extension, staff recommends it be of limited duration,
sufficient only to enable the timely completion of the rezoning process.
1
Packet Pg. 5
July 28, 2020 Page 4
Council may also consider allowing the moratorium to expire as currently planned on August 30, 2020. The risk of
a redevelopment application being submitted in the first several weeks after moratorium expiration is partially
mitigated by required development review process procedures. Before a formal submittal is made and accepted
by the City, a property owner must first complete a conceptual review meeting, likely followed by a neighborhood
meeting. Neighborhood meetings require a 14-day notification period and are followed by a 10-day waiting period
before a development application may be submitted. These pre-application steps are likely to result in a minimum
of one-month advance notice before a formal application is submitted.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary (PDF)
2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 2020
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation
Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director
FROM: JC Ward, Senior City Planner
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
RE: April 28, 2020 Work Session Summary – Manufactured Housing Zoning &
Residents’ Rights Update
At the April 28th City Council Virtual Work Session, Ryan Mounce and JC Ward provided an
update on work underway to develop a new manufactured housing zone district and information
about recently completed and forthcoming residents’ rights and livability strategies, including the
potential for a manufactured housing licensing system. All councilmembers were present for the
discussion via video conferencing.
The new manufactured housing zone district and additional resident rights and livability strategies
are intended to advance Council priorities to preserve manufactured housing, prevent resident
displacement, and improve livability and protections available to residents in manufactured
housing communities.
General discussion and direction from the work session included:
Manufactured Housing Zone District & Rezoning Criteria
Continuing to develop and bring forward Land Use Code changes to implement a new
manufactured housing zone district as a preservation strategy.
General support for ‘Option A’ for the types of permitted uses that should be included in
the new zone district. Discussion reaffirmed the focus of the zone district to specifically
preserve manufactured housing and minimize resident displacement, which could remain
a partial outcome under ‘Option B.’
Some types of permitted land uses, such as extra occupancy rental houses and primary
short term rentals, may not be appropriate in the zone district or create new business
models that result in resident displacement.
Review and refine the types of criteria staff may use to recommend sites for inclusion in
the new zone district. Criteria such as infrastructure condition could be punishing to
residents in certain communities who would otherwise not benefit from the goals of the
new zone district.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C830CF7-EE75-4AA1-9E24-A3E61C7607E5
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Work Session Summary (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
April 28, 2020 Council Work Session Summary Page 2
Manufactured Housing Zoning & Residents’ Rights Update
Several questions or requests for additional information were raised on how the zone
district could impact the potential for resident owned communities, as well as how new
technologies (3D printing or new modular home systems) could supplement the zone
district to improve energy efficiency, building conditions, and levels of overall affordability.
Residents’ Rights Strategies & Licensing
General support for research into mobile home community licensing system with additional
information and detailed options for Council’s consideration to define the specific livability
issues to address, responsible parties, and penalties.
Exploration of mobile home community licensing programs will include analysis of
analogous programs in Colorado communities as well as successful regional models.
Initial research into mobile home community licensing in Colorado indicated programs akin
to business licensing with minimum enforcement authorization rather than a
livability/habitability focus supported by compliance staff.
Licensing and other strategies should seek to minimize the pass-thru of costs and fees to
residents. Licensing and inspection fee rates should be informed by current costs to
residents or park management for addressing livability issues.
The forthcoming mobile home community licensing Council Memo will describe the
process Staff will propose to vet licensing program options that will include input from
external stakeholders, mobile home community residents, and community partners.
Mobile home neighborhood liaisons and community partners are establishing
communication and engagement networks to support discussions of resident owned
community models.
Mobile Home Livability and Community-Building Mini-Grant round two funding is currently
on hold at the recommendation of PDT Finance as the City assesses 2020 budget and
anticipated shortfalls.
Next Steps & Follow-up
Staff will resume and continue stakeholder outreach on both the manufactured housing
zone district and livability strategies following a pause due to the initial response to COVID-
19.
The new zone district will continue to move towards implementation. Staff anticipates
presenting Land Use Code changes for Council’s consideration in early summer following
the resumption of Board and Commission meetings and remote quasi-judicial hearings.
Additional residents’ rights and livability strategies and municipal code changes are
scheduled for Council consideration in Q3 2020. Draft proposed language was included
in Council’s work session documents.
Staff will prepare a memo for Council regarding options and research for a licensing
program and additional resident owned community strategies.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C830CF7-EE75-4AA1-9E24-A3E61C7607E5
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Work Session Summary (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
July 28, 2020
Manufactured Housing
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
Work Session Summary
Manufactured Housing Zone District
Criteria for rezoning; existing land use
guidance
Moratorium
Revised rezoning process & timeline
Implications for moratorium expiration
2
1.2
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
3
Direction Sought
1) Should properties designated as commercial in City Plan or neighborhood
plans be considered for rezoning to the new manufactured housing district?
2) What are Councilmember’s views on extending the manufactured housing
redevelopment moratorium?
1.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
4
Manufactured Housing Zone District
Manufactured Housing Zone District
Creates new tool to help preserve manufactured
housing communities
Maintain neighborhoods; reduce likelihood of
displacement
Implemented through Land Use Code updates
Upon adoption, properties could be considered for
rezoning
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
5
Manufactured Housing Zone District
Rezoning Evaluation
New district intended for existing
manufactured housing communities
~ 1,400 units City limits
~ 2,100 units in GMA
Zoning considered at time of
annexation
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
6
Manufactured Housing Zone District
Rezoning Evaluation
Staff previously shared potential rezoning criteria from prior studies on a
manufactured housing zone district:
Discussion included that some criteria were less relevant; most properties
should be considered to achieve preservation goals
Size
Presence of Natural Hazards
% Owner Occupied Units
Prior Zoning History / Land
Use Guidance
Stakeholder Input
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
7
Rezoning Criteria
Rezoning Evaluation – Land Use Code criteria
Quasi-judicial rezonings must:
Align with the comprehensive plan and/or
Warranted by changed conditions in surrounding neighborhood
Additional criteria which may be considered:
Rezoning compatible with existing/proposed uses surrounding property
Adverse impacts on the natural environment
Result in logical and orderly development pattern
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
8
Land Use Guidance
Rezoning Evaluation
Land use and zoning guidance is provided by:
City Plan Structure Plan map (broad)
Subarea plans (neighborhood-specific)
Land use and zoning guidance indicates:
General land-use categories & intensities
Residential, commercial, high density, etc.
Specific zoning categories
Policy goals & objectives
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
9
Land Use Guidance
Existing guidance:
Most properties containing a manufactured housing community are
consistent with City Plan / Subarea Plans
Designated for residential development
Identified for low/medium intensity
Surrounded by other residential uses and complementary activities
Promote growth framework and housing policies
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
10
Land Use Guidance
Existing guidance:
Several properties containing a manufactured housing community are not
consistent with City Plan / Subarea Plans
Designated for commercial or mixed-use
Identified for higher intensity development
Surrounded by other commercial uses and activities
Other policies seek to promote
Infill / intensification along major corridors
Infrastructure and transportation enhancements
Land consolidation and greater mix of uses
1.2
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
11
Options
1) Consider rezoning residential properties in alignment with City Plan /
Subarea Plans
Represents ~88% of City’s manufactured housing units
2) Consider rezoning both residential and commercial properties
Rezoning commercial properties not aligned with City Plan / Subarea
Plans
Requires additional process to amend policy documents
Understand policy implications of change in designation
Additional outreach with stakeholders
Adds additional time to rezoning process
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
12
Moratorium Overview
Moratorium Established
Limit the City’s acceptance of development applications
Allow time to research and adopt preservation & residents’ rights tools
One-year; expires August 30, 2020
Work Underway
Resident’s rights – August Municipal Code changes
New M-H zone district – August Land Use Code changes
Rezoning process – August/September
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
13
Preservation Timeline
Original Timeline
Develop standards
Outreach / feedback
Adoption
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct
Moratorium
Expires
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
14
Preservation Timeline
Revised Timeline
Develop standards
Outreach
Adoption
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct / Q4
COVID Delays Outreach
EngagementExpires Impacts Moratorium
Reduced stakeholder input opportunities 2-3 months
Cancelation of Board & Commission meetings
Additional rezoning engagement planned: ongoing owner/manager
conversations; virtual neighborhood meetings
Commercial
Rezonings
Commercial
Rezonings
1.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
15
Moratorium Impacts
Moratorium Expiration: Impacts & Risks
After moratorium expires:
Property owners could submit redevelopment application under
current zoning
Mitigation
Requires 30+ days of pre-submittal work before submission of
application
Conceptual reviews, neighborhood meeting, notification & waiting periods
1.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
16
Moratorium Options
1) Allow moratorium to expire; complete rezoning process as soon as possible
2) Consider extension of moratorium to allow rezoning process to complete
within moratorium protections
Requires two readings before Council
Recommended extension: 2 – 4 months
1.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
17
Direction Sought
1) Should properties designated as commercial on the Structure Plan map be
considered for rezoning to the new manufactured housing district?
2) What are Councilmember’s views on extending the manufactured housing
redevelopment moratorium?
1.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
18
RESOURCE SLIDES
1.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
Zone Development Timeline
19
City Limits
Manufactured Home Community
GMA Boundary
City GMA Total
Communities 10 14 24
Home Sites 1,400 2,137 3,537
Manufactured Housing Community (MHC)
Locations in the Fort Collins GMA
1.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
Zone Development Timeline
20
City Limits
MHC in Residential Zone District
MHC in Commercial Zone District
Existing Zoning (city limits)
Residential Zoning
6 located in Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(LMN) District
1 located in Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
(NCB) District
Commercial Zoning
2 located in Service Commercial (CS) District
Mixed Zoning
1 located in two zone districts (CS & LMN)
1.2
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
21
Existing Standards
Existing CS & LMN Zoning:
No manufactured housing specific standards
Rely on ‘General Development Standards’ in Land Use Code
Wide variety of permitted uses and intensities
CS LMN
95 permitted uses; mostly
commercial
No density maximum
3-story height limit
43 permitted uses; mostly
residential
Maximum density of 9 dwelling
units/acre (12 if affordable)
3-story height limit
1.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
22
Existing Conditions - Density
Community Zoning Size (ac.) Units DU/Acre
Skyline LMN 25.68 172 6.69
Hickory Village LMN 30.31 204 6.73
North College (College Frontage) CS 12.84 150 11.68
North College (Rear Half) LMN 22.38 172 7.68
North College (Overall) CS/LMN 35.22 322 9.14
Stonecrest CS 2.26 24 10.61
North Star LMN 4.26 54 12.67
Harmony Village LMN 71.46 486 6.8
Pleasant Grove LMN 12.53 114 9.09
1.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
23
Existing Conditions – Perimeter Setbacks
Community Perimeter Setbacks
Skyline 20’
Hickory Village 0‐5’ (buildings off‐parcel: Soft Gold Park)
North College 0‐5’
Stonecrest 0‐5’
North Star 10‐15’
Harmony Village 15‐20’ (side); 5‐10’ (rear)
Pleasant Grove 0‐5’
1.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
24
Existing Conditions – Unit Separations
Community Min. Unit Separations
Skyline 10‐15’ (side to side); 15‐20’ (end to end)
Hickory Village 20‐25’ (side to side);
North College (Overall) 10‐20’ (side to side); 5‐15’ (end to end)
Stonecrest 5‐10’ (side to side);
North Star 10‐15’ (side to side); 0‐5’ (end to end)
Harmony Village 15‐20’ (side to side); 10‐15’ (end to end)
Pleasant Grove 15‐20’ some as low as 5’ from accessory buildings to unit (side to side)
1.2
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9295 : Manufactured Housing Rezoning Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 28, 2020
Julia Feder, Environmental Planning Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Zoe Shark, Interim Natural Areas Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Natural Areas and Local Agriculture
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss potential conservation agriculture projects on lands acquired and managed
by the City’s Natural Areas Department (the Department). Pending Council’s advice and feedback, in coming
months staff will return to Council for its review of several leases associated with potential conservation
agriculture partnerships. This item will provide an overview of conservation agriculture and a description of how
conservation agriculture can help the Department improve its land stewardship. It will discuss how the
Department could align agricultural management practices with its mission and support the City’s goals related to
local, sustainable agriculture.
A conservation agriculture approach would represent a shift to the current land management methodology on
several natural areas. This shift will better reflect the 2014 Natural Areas Master Plan as compared to current
agricultural operations (monocropping and haying). Moreover, as one of the largest landowners in and around
Fort Collins, the City can play a role in helping the community achieve its goals related to the local food system as
articulated in City Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What reflections does Council have on the concept to apply innovative, conservation management practices
to conserved agricultural land?
2. Is September 2020 a reasonable timeline for Council consideration of two conservation agricultural land
leases for the sites discussed in this Work Session?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW
Contextual information provided in this document is organized in the following sections:
A. Background
B. Conservation Agriculture
C. Historical Context and Guiding Policies
D. Potential Projects
E. Examples from Other Communities
F. Summary of Anticipated Outcomes
A. BACKGROUND
The mission to, “conserve and enhance lands with natural resource, agricultural and scenic values, while
providing meaningful education and appropriate recreation opportunities,” guides the City’s Natural Areas
Department. This mission also makes the Department well-positioned to help preserve the agricultural heritage of
the region and support City strategic goals related to the local food system.
July 28, 2020 Page 2
Council-approved policies and plans, such as the Department’s mission and vision statements and the 2014
Natural Areas Master Plan, in addition to management policies and ballot language, provide guidance on how
agriculture can best support City Plan Principles related to Environmental Health and a Safe Community. As one
of the largest landowners in and around Fort Collins, the Department can play an integral role in helping the City
achieve its goals regarding growth of the local food system.
Of the more than 37,000 total acres of land owned and managed by the Department, approximately 12,000 acres
are located within the City Limits, the Growth Management Area, in the foothills or in the Loveland-Fort Collins
Community Separator. Among this acreage, and in support of its mission, the Department has acquired several
agricultural properties. Many of these natural areas are actively managed through agriculture partnerships. In
total, external partners actively farm approximately 300 acres, on five local natural area sites.
Current agricultural operations on natural areas help preserve a pastoral view of the landscape by preserving
open space. The agriculture production on the 300 local acres focuses on raising grasses and legumes (smooth
brome, alfalfa, and feed corn) that supports regional, stock animal operations. These farmers employ flood
irrigation techniques and often use synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to support yield. While these
management practices support the Department’s goals of preserving scenic views, monocropping and
conventional agricultural techniques result in lower ecologically valuable landscapes than those managed through
diversified, sustainable agriculture.
In consideration of the environmental, social, and economic vitality of the community, the Department proposes to
shift to conservation agricultural practices on properties currently managed through conventional agriculture to
better align with the Department’s conservation focus. There are many different names, techniques, and
certifications used to define innovative and sustainable agricultural practices. Familiar ones such as organic
farming, permaculture, and integrated pest management have long been accepted by the public, while agro-
forestry, agri-environment management, and naturally certified are newer concepts taking root. The concept most
aligned with the Natural Areas mission, and for discussion at this Work Session, is conservation agriculture.
B. CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
Conservation agriculture includes principles from other methods, such as organic farming. What sets it apart,
however, is a focus on protecting and enhancing natural resources.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines conservation agriculture as:
• Protecting and enhancing biodiversity
• Providing environmental services
• Promoting soil health
• Conserving water and preventing pollution of waterways
• Reducing the need for fertilizer or chemical inputs
• Preparing for and adapting to climate change
The FAO further describes conservation agriculture as:
A farming system that can prevent losses of arable land while regenerating degraded lands. It promotes
maintenance of a permanent soil cover, minimum soil disturbance, and diversification of plant species. It
enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above and below the ground surface, which contribute to
increased water and nutrient use efficiency in addition to improved and sustained crop production.
Studies on conservation agriculture (e.g. Kessam et al., 2009) show these practices improve ecosystem function
and services, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support adaptation for climate change, and reduce vulnerability
through increased stability in production yields and incomes for farmers. Additional analysis indicates that
conservation agriculture positively impacts biodiversity, decreases nutrient management needs, and increases the
water holding capacity of soils (Kremen and Miles, 2012). These same ecosystem services drive restoration and
management efforts across the City Natural Areas.
2
Packet Pg. 34
July 28, 2020 Page 3
If the Department pursues conservation agriculture, it will require lease agreements with external partners that
outline clear expectations for all parties. Natural Areas does not recommend prescribing how a partner may
manage a site. However, it is recommended that agreements provide specific, expected outcomes and document
partners’ progress toward meeting those goals.
Expected outcomes for conservation agriculture efforts on natural areas include:
1. Shift from current monoculture to diversified plantings.
2. Integrate native seed mixes into grazed and not actively farmed areas.
3. Conserve water with innovative irrigation techniques.
4. Rebuild the soil body with improved nutrient composition.
5. Integrate native plantings throughout farmed areas to benefit wildlife including pollinators, birds, and small
mammals which may include establishment of Department-led, small-scale restoration projects on portions of
a site.
Progress toward some outcomes, such as a shift from a monoculture to diversified landscape, will start to happen
within the first year of establishing these partnerships. However, outcomes with long lasting conservation impacts,
such as soil and habitat improvements, may require a longer timeframe to realize the full benefits of this shift.
Given the extended timeline of landscape-scale, ecological change, as well as the upfront investments a potential
partner may need to make, it is recommended that lease agreements have minimum five-year, and preferably 10-
year, initial terms.
C. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND GUIDING POLICIES
In the 2014 Natural Areas Master Plan, agriculture was recognized to provide many benefits, including supporting
a local food base, contributing to the local economy, minimizing urban sprawl, and providing the community a
connection to nature through agriculture. The plan recommends pursuing, “both resource conservation and
agricultural activities on conserved working farms and ranches.” The Natural Areas Master Plan and Natural
Areas site/zone specific Management Plans provide further guidance, detailing how agricultural management
practices can support conservation goals.
In addition, City Plan includes Strategies, Principles, and Policies related to local agriculture. These initiatives
encourage the acquisition of open lands for agriculture/food production, promote sustainable soil- and pest-
management practices, and urge support for new and existing local producers.
The most relevant City Plan Principles include:
• ENV 1.1 - PUBLICLY CONTROLLED OPEN LANDS Maintain a system of publicly controlled natural areas to
maintain the integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins’ diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad range of
opportunities for educational, interpretive and recreational programs to meet community needs.
• ENV 1.3 - NATURE IN THE CITY Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological
resources throughout the GMA by…identifying opportunities to integrate or reintroduce natural systems as
part of the built environment to improve habitat in urbanized areas and expand residents’ access to nature.
• SC 4.3 - COMMUNITY GARDENS AND MARKETS: Support cooperative efforts to establish community
gardens; support and maintain new and existing local producers; and encourage retail opportunities, markets,
and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares.
• SC 4.4 - REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM: Work collaboratively with regional partners and producers to identify
leadership and advisory opportunities for the regional food system. Consider developing coordination and
advisory roles to help facilitate dialogue on regional food system issues.
• SC 4.5 - COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE: Encourage and support the establishment of community gardens
and other horticultural projects throughout the city to provide food, beautification, education, and other social
benefits. Support the development of community-led horticulture projects and agricultural activities on
appropriate City-owned lands (e.g., HOA-run garden plots in neighborhood parks, ongoing leasing for
agricultural purposes, and farmers’ markets in public plazas and parking lots) and in both new and existing
neighborhoods.
2
Packet Pg. 35
July 28, 2020 Page 4
• SC 4.6 - SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: Promote sustainable soil- and pest-management
practices such as Integrated Pest Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil health
principles and organic farming practices.
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Input
When staff presented an overview of conservation agriculture and two specific projects the Land Conservation
and Stewardship Board (LCSB) expressed two primary concerns (Attachment 1). First, while supportive of
expanded local food production, LCSB does not believe the Department’s mission and ballot language are well
aligned with such efforts. Second, LCSB expressed concern that conservation agriculture could become a major
land management practice for the Department.
From the perspective of staff, conservation agriculture better reflects the Natural Areas Master Plan and City Plan
than current agriculture management practices on these sites. In addition, agricultural conservation is referenced
as a value in the ballot language. However, given the Board’s concerns, staff suggests establishing a decision
framework to evaluate future opportunities.
The management opportunity for a property will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Property is not identified as a restoration priority within the Department’s 10-year restoration plan.
2. The site is currently managed by agricultural practices.
3. Water for irrigation is available to the site.
4. The property’s location supports thoughtful community access and engagement.
This framework ensures Natural Areas properties that are a high or medium priority for restoration within the next
10 years do not become conservation agricultural projects. While the Department does not recommend placing a
cap on the total acreage that may be managed through conservation agriculture efforts, if this would help LCSB
and Council move forward with confidence, we suggest setting a limit that no more than 5% of the total acreage
owned and managed by Natural Areas be considered for conservation agriculture projects.
D. POTENTIAL PROJECTS
Flores del Sol Natural Area
Located within the Fossil Creek Management Zone near the intersection of Timberline and Carpenter Roads,
Flores de Sol is a 150-acre natural area. This property was purchased in 2016 for its agricultural value, and its
location within the Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator. It is also valued because the Colorado Front
Range Trail (also known as the Powerline Trail) goes through the site and connects the Fort Collins and
Loveland’s paved trail systems. Thus, Flores del Sol is well positioned for community engagement with a
conservation agriculture project. Natural Areas staff recommends implementing conservation agriculture farming
practices on 85% of Flores del Sol. The remaining 15% (approximately 20-25 acres) would be conserved and
enhanced through planting of native, pollinator-friendly grasses, shrubs, and forbs.
In the summer of 2019, the Natural Areas Department released a request for proposals (RFP) to explore how a
qualified partner might implement a diversified agricultural operations on the Flores de Sol Natural Area, along
with other nearby properties in the Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator. In response to this RFP, and
subsequent proposal review process led by the City’s Purchasing Team, Poudre Valley Community Farms has
emerged as a preferred partner for implementing a conservation agriculture project on this site, pending the
results of this work session and subsequent lease negotiations.
2450 West Vine Street
Purchased in 2019, this 35-acre property sits within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area at the intersection
of West Vine Street and Taft Hill Road. The property was purchased for its agricultural value and its potential to
support a conservation agriculture operation. Natural Areas staff recommends implementing conservation
agriculture farming practices on 85% of 2450 West Vine Street (30 acres). The remaining 15% (approximately 5
acres) would be conserved and enhanced through planting of native, pollinator-friendly grasses, shrubs, and
2
Packet Pg. 36
July 28, 2020 Page 5
forbs, with a focus on connecting to other nearby Natural Areas purchased by the Department in June 2020.
Other properties
Moving forward, the Department proposes utilizing conservation agriculture as a management strategy on Natural
Areas designated for agriculture production in current management plans (i.e. Soaring Vista Natural Area), as well
as future acquisitions, as appropriate.
Conservation Agriculture and Grazing
It is important to note, beyond agriculture projects on irrigated farmland, Natural Areas employs grazing as a
critical grassland management tool. Given the significant differences in practice and objectives, properties
managed in part with dryland grazing are not included in this proposal for conservation agriculture.
E. EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES
The experience of municipalities across the region and organizations throughout the country provides important
insight to guide Fort Collins’ efforts.
• City of Boulder: Agricultural management plays an important role in Boulder’s Open Space and Mountain
Parks program. Approximately one-third of Boulder’s 46,000-acre Open Space program is managed through
agricultural operations. This includes practices such as prescriptive grazing, haying, and diversified farming.
Of that acreage, 470 acres is dedicated to market production of products, such as vegetable, meat, and dairy,
for local sale. (City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Master Plan, 2019)
• Boulder County: Approximately 25,000 acres of agricultural land is owned and managed through Boulder
County Parks and Open Space. Of this total land, 13,000 acres is irrigated cropland, with 3,500 acres certified
or pursuing organic certification. Boulder County actively works with farm lessees to increase pollinator
habitat, improve soil health, and implement water conservation techniques. (Boulder County Open Space and
Parks Agricultural Resources 2018 Annual Report)
• Montgomery County, Maryland: In 1980, Montgomery County established the Agricultural Reserve,
encompassing 93,000 acres of rural farmland. This effort supported the County’s goal of maintaining the
agricultural heritage of and limiting development in the region directly north of Washington, DC. As of March
2020, there are 172 farms preserved in Montgomery County under the Montgomery County Agricultural Land
Preservation Program, totaling 9,946 acres.
• Intervale Center: As a nongovernmental organization, the Intervale Center differs significantly from any
potential project in the City. However, its leadership in conservation agriculture and as an incubator for the
local food movement in northern Vermont provides many valuable insights. The Intervale Center manages
360-acres of farmland, trails, and open space just outside of Burlington, VT. Intervale works to support
thriving farm business and places sound and sustainable stewardship at the center of its agricultural
practices.
F. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
Applying a triple bottom line perspective to the proposal for conservation agriculture illustrates the full breadth of
how these efforts may support both the Natural Areas mission and City Plan goals.
Environmental Health Outcomes
The Department seeks to improve conservation outcomes across all its properties, including those discussed in
this proposal. Specifically, though conservation agriculture, the Department will:
• Protect and enhance biodiversity by shifting landscapes from intensively farmed monocultures to diverse
farming operations, Natural Areas anticipates positive outcomes related to biodiversity management for
urban-adapted species.
2
Packet Pg. 37
July 28, 2020 Page 6
• Provide environmental services by incentivizing agriculture partners to integrate habitat for beneficial
insects, including pollinators. Additionally, Natural Areas is interested in better understanding the role of
farmland in increasing carbon capture. Monitoring carbon, along with other soil nutrient levels, over extended
timeframes will support this effort.
• Promote soil health through thoughtful soil management and diverse crop rotation. Extending monitoring
efforts to below ground nutrient levels and soil composition can demonstrate how Natural Areas supports
conservation of habitat above and below ground.
• Conserve water resources and reduce chemical inputs through support of lower intensity agriculture
practices such as drip irrigation and reduced need for chemical application to agricultural fields.
Economic and Social Health Outcomes
While the Natural Areas mission does not directly address economic and social sustainability, conservation
agriculture projects support these City goals. Anticipated outcomes include:
• Increase availability and reliability of locally produced food, as well as number of community
members engaged. Local producers Nic and Katie Koontz, owners of Native Hill Farm, estimate their urban
farmland provides approximately 1,400 families with most of their annual vegetable needs. Expanding the
acreage of small, family farms such as Native Hill, will significantly increase the number of community
members served.
• Provide fresh, nutritious foods to vulnerable members of the community. Innovative partnerships with
organizations such as Larimer County Food Bank and The Vegetable Connection provide regional residents
with access to thousands of pounds of fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables. Farmers benefit from these
partnerships, as well, through reduced price sale of produce that may otherwise go to waste. Regional
organizations are eager to expand these opportunities given increased capacity and product from local farms.
• Keep skilled workers local. Seasonal and year-round positions on small, diversified farms provide emerging
farmers the opportunity to gain important experience needed to run a successful farm operation. After several
seasons of work on an established farm, these young and eager farmers often set off to establish their own
operations. Unfortunately, these emerging farmers face significant barriers to establishing their own operation
including high costs of land, water, and getting established in the local market. By providing affordable access
to land and through programs such as incubator plots, a City conservation agriculture project can help keep
talented farmers in Northern Colorado.
Through support for this project, the City can demonstrate its leadership and dedication to innovation. The City
can stand apart from other communities as it considers the environmental, social, and economic opportunities of
community-based agriculture initiatives. This work can signify a strong commitment to improved conservation
outcomes on City-owned agricultural lands, while also supporting an increased supply of fresh vegetables for the
community and ensuring family farms remain at the heart of our regional economy.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LCSB Memo to Council (PDF)
2. Proposed Site Maps (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 38
Natural Areas Department
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416-2815
970.416-2211 - fax
fcgov.com/naturalareas
naturalareas@fcgov.com
Memorandum
To - City Council
From - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB)
Date July 13, 2020
Subject - Local agriculture and food production on Natural Areas Property
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends that City objectives for
sustainable agriculture and food production be managed by departments other than the
Natural Areas Department, and that resources and responsibilities for local food production be
held deliberately separate from the Natural Areas Department and its City and County
dedicated funding sources. Four specific recommendations are provided on the next page.
The Fort Collins Natural Areas program selectively protects lands, by purchase or conservation
easement, when that land has specific conservation attributes. Investments are made to
preserve ecological resources, maintain viewsheds, and provide community separators.
Agriculture can and does occur on Natural Area conserved land, but agriculture is not a primary
conservation value; rather, it occurs for subsidiary reasons.
This Board finds that acquiring or managing lands for agricultural purposes is a distraction from
the core conservation mission of the Natural Areas Department, except when agriculture is in
direct support of specific conservation attributes. It also conflicts with the language of ballot
measures that provide funding for Natural Areas.
Incidental agriculture
Lands with ecological, viewshed, and community separator qualities frequently have
agricultural histories. When the Natural Areas program protects these lands, continuation of
agriculture is sometimes a condition of the sale or conservation easement. Agriculture is then
an incidental activity following conservation, and not a primary motivator of protection or
management. In some cases, agriculture is an effective means to maintain land condition at
low cost, even though the ultimate conservation goal is restoration of the land to its natural
condition; this is a proven stewardship strategy at Coyote Ridge. There is no need to change
management of incidental agriculture.
ATTACHMENT 1 2.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: LCSB Memo to Council (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
Local food production
The City’s goal of sustainable local food production is commendable. In a few places, Natural
Areas may be appropriate places for pursuit of that goal. That does not mean that the Natural
Areas Department should take on the role of planning the agriculture, establishing criteria,
soliciting operators, managing contracts, monitoring agricultural operations, or any of the other
myriad functions that will be required by a sustainable local food production program. Rather,
the Natural Areas Department and this Board should advise about the appropriateness of
proposed agricultural activities on protected lands.
In 2019, the Natural Areas Department and the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for
local food production on Flores del Sol Natural Area, which is agricultural land near the
Carpenter-Timberline intersection in south Fort Collins. Proposals have been received and
evaluated, and a potential agricultural lease with Poudre Valley Community Farms is under
consideration, for a ten-year term with optional five-year extensions.
Recommendations
1. Continue the Flores del Sol project. The LCSB respects the advanced stage of the Flores del
Sol procurement and believes it is in the best interest of the City to continue with the
project until funds are available for restoration of this Natural Area. The balance among
staff contract management costs, income produced by the lease, and avoided direct
stewardship costs is unknown. Over time, the Flores del Sol experiment may help
determine this balance.
2. Use the Flores del Sol experience as an opportunity to shift local food production
responsibilities to a Department other than Natural Areas.
3. If so desired, develop a City strategy for lands dedicated to local food production, separate
from Natural Areas and Natural Areas dedicated funding sources.
4. Future proposals for agriculture on Natural Areas should be vetted by this Board at early
stages of consideration.
2.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: LCSB Memo to Council (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS
Natural Areas Overview and Proposed Project Sites
1
19TMap of City of Fort Collins Natural Areas, excluding regional sites
ATTACHMENT 2 2.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Proposed Site Maps (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS
Natural Areas Overview and Proposed Project Sites
2
19TMap of Natural Areas with active agriculture projects (as of 7/2020)
2.2
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Proposed Site Maps (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS
Natural Areas Overview and Proposed Project Sites
3
19TMap of potential conservation agriculture project sites
2.2
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Proposed Site Maps (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS
Natural Areas Overview and Proposed Project Sites
4
19TMap of Flores Del Sol Natural Area
19TMap of 2450 West Vine Street
2.2
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Proposed Site Maps (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
July 28, 2020
Natural Areas and Local Agriculture
Julia Feder, Environmental Program Manager, Natural Areas Department
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
2
Questions for Council
1. What reflections does Council have on
the concepts to apply innovative,
conservation management practices to
conserved agricultural land?
2. Is September 2020 a reasonable
timeline to bring back for Council
review and potential approval two
conservation agricultural leases for the
sites discussed in this work session?
2.3
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
3
3
OVERVIEW
Tonight’s presentation:
1. Background
2. Conservation Agriculture
3. Potential Projects
4. Anticipated Outcomes
5. Dialogue about proposal
2.3
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
4
4
BACKGROUND
The Department seeks to better
align agricultural management practices
on natural areas with its mission and
in support of the City’s goals related to
local, sustainable agriculture.
2.3
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
5
Conserve and enhance
lands with natural
resource, agricultural,
and scenic values
BACKGROUND
2.3
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
37,000acres
6
Natural Areas Overview
2.3
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
7
Natural Areas Overview
2.3
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
12,000acres
8
Natural Areas Overview
2.3
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
p5roperties managed
with active ag projects
9
Agricultural Management
2.3
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
10
2.3
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
11
11
Services benefit biodiversity
without adding agricultural
value
Synergy between ecosystem
services, agriculture, and
biodiversity management
Services do not benefit
farmers or biodiversity
Services benefit agriculture
operations without
adding biodiversity value
Ecosystem service
Macfadyen, S., et al, 2012
Conservation Agriculture Assessment Tool
2.3
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
12
12
Services benefit biodiversity
without adding agricultural
value
Synergy between ecosystem
services, agriculture, and
biodiversity management
Services do not benefit
farmers or biodiversity
Services benefit agriculture
operations without
adding biodiversity value
Ecosystem service
Macfadyen, S., et al, 2012
Conservation Agriculture Assessment Tool
2.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
13
13
• Diversify crops
• Apply water saving techniques
• Rebuild soil body
• Integrate native plantings
• Establish micro-restorations
Proposed Management Practices
2.3
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
14
Conservation Agriculture Decision Matrix
1. Property is not identified as a
restoration priority.
2.3
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
15
Conservation Agriculture Decision Matrix
1. Property is not identified as a
restoration priority.
2. The site is currently managed for
agriculture.
3. Water for irrigation is available
4. Property’s location supports
thoughtful community access.
2.3
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
16
Conservation Agriculture Projects
3opportunities:
• 2560 W Vine Street
• Flores de Sol
• Soaring Vista
2.3
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
17
POTENTIAL PROJECTS
2.3
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
18
18
Flores de Sol
150-acre natural area
• 25 acres of diversified vegetable farming
• 90 acres can support grazing and flex fields
• Small-scale restoration
• 10-year lease with Poudre Valley
Community Farms; renewable for
additional five-year terms
2.3
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
19
19
West Vine Property
• 25-acre diversified vegetable farming
• Integrate wildlife habitat through
integrated pollinator plantings and small-
scale restoration on edges
• Small scale restoration
• RFP and proposal review Summer 2020
2.3
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
Environmental,
Social, &
Economic
Benefits
2.3
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
21
Environmental Benefits
• Protect and enhance
biodiversity
• Increase environmental
services
• Promote soil health
• Conserve water, prevent
pollution of waterways, and
reduce chemical inputs
2.3
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
22
Social Benefits
• Increase availability and
reliability of locally
produced food
• Provide fresh, nutritious
foods to vulnerable
members of the community
• Connect community
members to nature in new
ways
2.3
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
23
Economic Benefits
• Keep skilled workers local
• Provide emerging farmers
with opportunities to gain
experience
• Reduce barriers for young
farmers to start their own
agricultural
• Provide affordable access
to land
2.3
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
24
“This is an opportunity
to build community
through access
to fresh and nutritious,
locally grown food.”
2.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
25
Questions for Council
What reflections does Council have on the concepts to apply innovative,
conservation management practices to conserved agricultural land?
Is September 2020 a reasonable timeline to bring back for Council review and
potential approval two conservation agricultural leases for the sites discussed
in this work session?
2.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
THANK YOU!
2.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9297 : Natural Areas and Local Agriculture)
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
reimbursement or purchase rental tents, chairs,
menus, etc.
Future Ideas
• Remodeling small lobby in City Hall to create a
one stop customer service desk to keep the
public out of employee areas (~$250K)
1.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: CARES Allocation Research (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)
county funds will be available/eligible before they
are rolled out
El Paso
County
• Received $125.7M
• 55% County
• 45% City – disbursed by population
• County also kept Unincorporated Adams County allotment
of the 45%
• Total County $ = $84.4M or 67% of CARES allotment
• Cities must submit detailed listings of
expenditures monthly. Reports to be posted on
the El Paso County website.
• CARES allocation throughout County
departments. See link.
Douglas
County
*June 8th
proposal
• Received $30M
• 20% taken from the total for contact tracing
Remaining amount divided:
• 25% set aside for County services
• 75% disbursed between County and cities – formula
accounts for service provided, population, FTE, and
assessed value. See link.
• Total County $ = $22.11M or 73.4% of CARES allotment
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: CARES Allocation Research (9314 : Coronavirus Relief Fund (CVRF), CARES Act, Title V)