HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/04/2012-RegularDecember 4, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 4,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell -and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy..
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry recommended postponement of Item No. 20, Public Hearing on Authorizing
the Use of Eminent Domain by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority to January 15, 2013.
Additionally, he recommended the placement of an additional item under Other Business, First
Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of a Property Not Yet Under Full Ownership and Control of the
Applicant or Developer. .
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the agreement between the Urban Renewal
Authority and the Rocky Mountain Innosphere and opposed the assistance package provided to the
Innosphere.
Bill Mullaney, questioned the reasoning behind a Councilmember leaving the chambers when he
and Stacy Lynne speak.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed her child custody case.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, discussed the City's triple bottom line policies.
John Fye, 1405 Briarwood Road, read a portion of the book, "The Law."
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, encouraged increased cardboard
recycling and supported a reduction in supermarket plastic bag use.
196
December 4, 2012
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, discussed Boulder's "Do the Math" tour and carbon dioxide
emissions and air pollution.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat reviewed Council meeting rules and parliamentary procedures.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 8 and November 13 2012
Adjourned Meetings and the November 20, 2012 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund
Ordinance No. 131, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2012,
reappropriates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that havebeen returned
to the program for allocation in the fall 2012 Competitive Process.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
The Golf Board currently consists of nine members appointed by the City Council. At the
end of 2012, the terms of three members will expire. Two of those members are eligible for
reappointment but did not reapply for reappointment. One member did apply for
reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes to the size of
the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This opportunity was
presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the Council reduce
the size from nine to seven members. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 20, 2012, amends the City Code to reduce the size of the Board to
seven members.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
The City's Charter provides that service areas are provided by ordinance upon the
recommendation of the City Manager. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted.on First
Reading on November 20, 2012 amends the City Code, per the City Manager's
recommendation, to create a Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Area,
reflecting changes in roles and reporting relationships.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative
session relating to state traffic laws. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on November 20, 2012, ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code is consistent with state
traffic laws.
197
December 4, 2012
I I . Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20,2012, annex and
zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Kechter Road, approximately 900 feet east of
the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. The proposed zoning for this
annexation is Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N). This annexation
is not associated with the proposed Kechter Farm development, which is located southeast
of the Kechter Crossing Annexation. .
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2013 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $693,100, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($177,500 from each City), and interest earnings. This amount for each city is $92,500
greater than the previous year contributions of $85,000. For the City of Fort Collins the
original $85,000 is funded from General Fund ongoing revenue, while the one-time increase
of $92,500 will be funded from General Fund reserves.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 20, 2012, authorizes
the appropriation of the City of Fort Collins portion of the Airport's annual operating budget
in the amount of $346,550. This is 50% of the entire Airport annual operating budget of
$693,100.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City's 50% share of capital funds, totaling $1,100,000
for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland;
and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2013 Airport capital funds, totaling $2,200,000,
will be used to complete major Airport improvements, such as taxiway and apron
rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering
to accommodate Airport business development.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the
University Station at the request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative
fencing, enhanced landscaped plaza, walkway lighting, spare conduit installation, and
upsizing of the storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff. These items are
not eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the
MAX BRT Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU. This ordinance appropriates the
December 4, 2012
identified funds of $806,380 to construct the improvements concurrently with the BRT
project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees' Pay
Plan.
The City of Fort Collins 2013 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee
compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City
positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The
2013 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector
markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational
groups. Ranges for non -benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is
calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins' Stormwater
Management Program identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the
requirements. This inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins Design Criteria Manual allowing
emergency work to be exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) requirements of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities,
the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from
the requirements. The proposed amendment will clarify that emergency work will be
exempt only from advance submittal requirements, but not requirements for measures to
prevent and control erosion.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No 117, 2012 to Correct
the List of Properties Contained in Such Ordinance That Are Subject to the Special Fee
Imposed by Such Ordinance.
This Ordinance amends OrdinanceNo. 117, 2012, adopted on Second Reading on November,
6, 2012, that established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property within close
proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State
Highway 392. The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel of property in Zone A that is
actually located within the Town of Windsor. This property should not have been shown as
being subject to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance.
This Ordinance removes that parcel of property and slightly adjusts the area of the property
owned by Terry and Mary Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property size.
17. Resolution 2012-113 Adopting the 2012 Update to the Transportation Capital Improvement
Plan, Appendix F of the City of Fort Collins-2011 Transportation Master Plan.
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an inventory of all multi -modal
transportation needs throughout the City and is an appendix to Transportation Master Plan
(TMP). The focus of the 2012 update was to ensure that the CIP is accurate, up-to-date, and
more user-friendly. The update also supports the action steps specified in the 2011
199
December 4, 2012
TMP/CIP. This is an administrative update to the CIP. Adoption of a revised version
requires City Council approval because the CIP is an appendix to the Transportation Master
Plan.
18. Resolution 2012-114 Adopting the 2012 Update to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort
Collins.
This is the 2012 update to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Three -Mile
Plan). The Three -Mile Plan is a State -required long-range "plan" that outlines the existing
plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City Council
which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of infrastructure and
land uses. In addition, there are some plans and policies that are listed in the Three -Mile
Plan that were adopted by Larimer County, Colorado State University or adjoining
municipalities, as these are also located within the boundaries of the Three -Mile Plan. There
are very few changes from the 201 1 update.
19. Resolution 2012-115 Adopting the Annual Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City
of Fort Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2013 for
Operations and Maintenance.
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the
Poudre Fire Authority.
20. Postponement of the Public Hearing on Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain by the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority to January 15, 2013.
Notice was previously mailed to property owners in the Midtown Urban Renewal Area of
a City Council hearing that had been planned for Tuesday, December 4th. The hearing was
for consideration of the authorization in the Midtown Plan of the use of eminent domain by
the Urban Renewal Authority. Because the Council will be conducting a hearing on January
15th regarding the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and other related issues, the hearing that
had been planned for December 4th will be postponed and will instead take place as part of
the January l5thhearing. Notice of the January hearing will be published and mailed within
the next couple of weeks.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
Kill]
Decensber 4, 2012
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
11. Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Kechter Crossing Annexation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2012; Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees' Pay
Plan.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct.
the List of Properties Contained in Such Ordinance That Are Subject to the Special Fee
Imposed by Such Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw; to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel reported several Councilmember attended a meeting regarding the homeless
population in Fort Collins. He stated the idea of opening City buildings as night-time shelters has
been discussed.
Councilmember Poppaw noted there are barriers to entry at some emergency shelters.
Mayor Weitkunat noted any shelter decisions will be formally placed on a Council agenda.
201
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak reported on the National League of Cities annual meeting and discussed his
committee meeting relating to the regulation of hydraulic tracking and the protection of municipal
water supplies.
Mayor Pro Tent Ohlson reported on the annual legislative breakfast attended by Councilmembers.
Items Relating to Medical Marijuana, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2012, Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 15, Article
AW of the City Code in Accordance with a Voter Approved Citizen -Initiated Ordinance
Governing the Licensing, Number, Location and Operation of Medical Marijuana
Businesses.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.143, 2012,AmendingtheLand Use Code in Accordance with
a Voter Approved, Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Governing the Licensing, Number, Location
and Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses.
These ordinances are being presented to the City Council as a result of the passage of a citizen -
initiated measure, Measure 301, on November 6, 2012. The stated purpose of Measure 301 is to
strictly regulate, control, and permit a limited number of state -authorized medical marijuana
businesses within the City ofFort Collins.
Ordinance No. 142, 2012, repeals the sections of Chapter 15 of the City Code that were enacted to
ban such businesses and replaces those sections with Measure 301.
Ordinance No. 143, 2012, addresses changes specific to the Land Use Code (LUC) that are also
necessary to implement Measure 301. On February 21, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 010, 2012, which deleted all references in the Land Use Code (LUC) to medical marijuana
businesses, disallowing any medical marijuana businesses in any zone district within the city limits.
In order to fully implement Measure 301, it is necessary to put the previous references to such
businesses back into the Land Use Code, thereby once again allowing those businesses in certain
zone districts.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2012, a citizen -initiated measure, Measure 301, was approved by the voters. It
implements a licensing system for medical marijuana businesses, similar to the businesses that were
in place prior to the ban in 2011. This measure took effect upon certification of the election results
on November 19, 2012. With its passage and certification, it is necessary to amend the City Code
and the LUC to once again allow medical marijuana businesses.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council repeal and reenact Chapter 15, Article XVI of
the City Code, consistent with the wishes of the registered electors. This will remove the provisions
prohibiting medical marijuana businesses and codify the new voter -approved provisions governing
202
December 4, 2012
the licensing, number, location and operation ofinedical marijuana businesses set forth in Measure
301.
With regard to the Land Use Code amendments, staffis recommending that the previous regulations
governing the zone districts in which medical marijuana businesses were allowed and not allowed
should be reinstated in the same manner as they previously existed in the Code.
Medical marijuana businesses that were allowed in the city prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 010,
2012 earlier this year consisted of "medical marijuana centers" (aka dispensaries), "medical
marijuana -infused products manufacturers ", and "medical marijuana eptionalpremises cultivation
operations ".
Medical marijuana centers were previously allowed in the following zone districts: D, RDR, CC,
CCN, CCR. CG, and CS.
Medical marijuana -infused products manufacturers and medical marijuana optional premises
cultivation operations were allowed in the following zone districts: RDR, CCN, CS, CL (non -
Riverside areas only), anal.
In addition to allowing medical marijuana businesses in the above -referenced zone districts, the
previous regulations prohibited such uses from being conducted as a home occupation, and
prohibited them from being allowed under the 'addition of permitted use' process. These
prohibitions are recommended to be put back into the LUC, and are included in the LUC ordinance.
The two ordinances presented bring consistency to both the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code
as the City moves forward in enacting Measure 301.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On December 20, 2012, between First and Second Reading, the Planning and Zoning Board will
consider the proposed Land Use Code Ordinance and will forward a recommendation to City
Council prior to Second Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has not conducted formalpublic outreach since these changes are the result of an election. "
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, noted these Ordinances are related to the local measure
301, not to the State Amendment 64. Ordinance No. 142, 2012, enacts Measure 301 and removes
the previous ban on medical marijuana businesses in the City Code. Ordinance No. 143, 2012,
amends the Land Use Code and inserts the previous references to medical marijuana businesses.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed education and treatment relating to medical
marijuana and encouraged the enactment of a strict sales tax from which the revenues can be
dedicated to education and treatment.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the term "strictly" regulated. City
Attorney Roy replied the term "strictly" is a matter of perception and judgment. Separation and
203
December 4, 2012
security requirements may be considered strict; however, staff is not at liberty to amend the
provisions of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell discussed the previous regulations and separation requirements and
requested an interpretation of the new separation requirements. Sawyer stated Measure 301 is
stricter regarding distance separation requirements for colleges and universities. The Ordinance is
written with a bias towards previously licensed businesses and includes a cap to the number of
businesses that are allowed in the community, based on the number of registered patients. If all of
the previously existing businesses were to provide complete applications to open on the same
parcels, all of those businesses would be allowed to re -open.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the Ordinance wording regarding plant size. Sawyer replied
the Ordinance does not include previous references to plant size and clones; however, it does include
two ounces of sales per seven days.
Councilmember Troxell noted medical marijuana is still against federal law and asked if that fact
puts City staff and police officers at risk for breaking federal law. City Attorney Roy replied it does
conceivably put staff at risk; however, clarification on that issue is being sought from the U.S.
Attorney's office.
Councilmember Troxell stated the most recent document from the U.S. Attorney's office was that
the federal laws are set to be enforced. City Attorney Roy replied there was a reference to state
officials, though none to local officials, in one letter from the U.S. Attorney's office to an Attorney
General in another state.
Councilmember Marvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 142, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the City's previous regulations are returning in essentially the same
form as they existed before the ban. Sawyer replied in the affirmative and noted all state regulations
will apply as well.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern about the health and safety of members of the
community and stated he would not support the motion.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this Ordinance repeals and reenacts Chapter 15 of the City Code and exists
because it was voter -approved.
Councilmember Horak noted there have been no moves by the federal government to prosecute
these cases.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Marvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
IIrGINi•[671118W[
204
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 143, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Regulations, Adopted Option C on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council directed staff to evaluate methods by which the City may regulate oil and gas
exploration and production. Since oil and gas operations are governed primarily by the state and
federal governments, staff will provide an overview of what regulations exist and where the City
may be effective in both filling existing regulatory "gaps " and strengthening existing regulations
in order to betterprotect the health and safety ofresiden is. Discussion includes development review
criteria, water and air quality, environmental protections, and emergency services. Staff also
presents information on non -regulatory ways to respond to residents' concerns including options
such as surface-useand operator agreements, legislative advocacy, regional cooperation, and active
participation in related state and federal rulemaking processes.
Staff is providing three options for Council's consideration:
• Option A: Dual -track development review process
• Option B: Single-track development review process
• Option C: Moratorium
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
' Existing oil and gas activity in the city:
Oil production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field, located in the northeast portion of the
city. The Fort Collins Field is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and
has been in production since about 1925. In the City limits, the field consists of seven producing
wells and seven injecting wells within the City limits, all of which are managed by one operator.
Four residential subdivisions have developed around the Fort Collins field, with an additional
subdivision planned in the area.
In addition to the Fort Collins field, well development has historically occurred southward along.
the 1-25 corridor. There are no active wells in this area today. As all wells were subsequently
annexed into City boundaries, there have been no permits issued to date in the City ofFort Collins.
Two recent developments may result in significant changes in oil and gas exploration in Lorimer
County. The first is the successful exploration of the Niobrara formation, which lies deep under
much ofnortheastern Colorado, and the second is the advancing technology ofhydraulic fracturing
205
December 4, 2012
to extract the resource from within deeply located shale deposits. This has raised considerable
public concern.
Existing regulations
Because oil and gas exploration and production is regulated by the state in Colorado, local
jurisdictions are limited in their ability to control the location, procedures, and impacts of oil and
gas drilling in and around their boundaries. A combination of the state's laws and several court
cases have resulted in the preemption oflocal control over various aspects ofoil andgas activities,
and the scope of that preemption is the subject of ongoing litigation..
Accordingly, existing oil and gas regulations in the Land Use Code are limited to a single
paragraph in Section 3.8.14 and reads as follows:
"Any use that is not permitted under the provisions of Article 4, but that must be
allowed because of preemption by a sovereign jurisdiction or because of a court
order, shall be processed as a Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review)
and shall be approved, with or without conditions, as necessary to ensure that such
use complies with all general standards as set forth in Article 3 and zone district
standards as set forth in Article 4 as are or may reasonably be interpreted to be
applicable to such use, provided that such standards are not preempted or ordered
by a court not to be applied. " .
This section indicates that all oil and gas operations are subject to a Type 2, or Planning and
Zoning Board review. This paragraph also suggests that oil and gas operations are subject to the
standards set forth in the Land Use Code, to the extent that they are not preempted by the state.
DISCUSSION - Proposed Framework for Oil and Gas Operations:
As discussed above, the City has a shared authority with the state and other agencies for controlling
how oil and gas operations occur both above and below ground. Typically, the City's Land Use
Code serves as the primary mechanism for land development in the City. However, because of the
shared authority with the state, staff has identified a number of methods to address specific
community concerns and better address oil and gas operations at local levels. Staff recommends
that the City engage at the federal, state and regional levels, as well, to better affect regulations or
ensure compliance with regulations.
Federal
The federal level options are aimed at influencing the Environmental Protection Agency and other
regulatory bodies to gain more stringent oversight of oil and gas operations. The EPA intends to
have anew set of operating criteria for oil and gas in place in 2015 and City of Fort Collins staff
intends to comment on whether those policies are implemented at a statewide or local level.
Significant costs may be incurred by the City if implemented locally rather than utilizing existing
statewide resources.
206
December 4, 2012
In addition to influencing governmental agencies at the federal level, the City can also utilize federal
research, programs, and services to ensure oil and gas operations both within the City's boundaries
and at a regional level do not degrade quality of life.
State
Colorado permits oil and gas activity through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC). In addition to the COGCC, two other state agencies have a role in oversight of oil and
gas operations — the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and
the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW). CDPHE's oversight is focused upon the
potential and actual impacts of oil and gas activity on human health, specifically with regards to
air and water quality. The DPW, a sister agency of the COGCC under the Department of Natural
Resources, has oversight of habitat and wildlife protection.
The state -level options include the following opportunities for City involvement:
• Engage in stakeholder processes —As with the federal level engagement opportunities, the
City can participate in stakeholder processes to affect the rules at the state level that affect
oil and gas operations.
• Local Government Designee —This tool establishes a staff representative who participates
in the state's review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil
and gas applications at the state level.
• Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the state — An IGA could allow for the City to
have inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations
within city limits.
• Advocating for legislative change — The City can engage in legislative discussions to
influence the state and other municipalities. Fort Collins' Legislative Policy Agenda calls
for supporting legislation to provide communities with more tools to address the industry
and more power over local land use.
• Designated Outside Activity Areas— This tool allows for an area, e.g., City Park, to receive
the same 350 foot setback that high density areas receive. The City applies for this
designation through the state on areas in the City that meet certain qualifications, e.g., a
certain number of users per day or per year. Longmont has successfully received approval
for, two City park complexes.
Regional
Regional solutions include addressing some impacts of oil and gas activity collaboratively with
other local governments. These collaborations include hiring a shared inspector to effectively
balance the ability to inspect local wells with the number of existing wells and anticipated activity.
Staff initiated conversations with several jurisdictions about sharing an inspector.
The regional level also presents a partnership opportunity with other municipalities, counties, and
researchers to address issues that go beyond our city borders, e.g., air quality. Intergovernmental
207
December 4, 2012
agreements to share monitoring resources and equipment for air quality are one tool the City could
explore. From a research perspective, faculty at Colorado State University is examining air
emissions from well sites in Garfield County beginning in spring 2013 through fall 2015. The
results of this study, funded jointly by the County and industry, are anticipated to provide a better
understanding of the toxicity of well emissions. Staffinet with the faculty associated with this study,
as well as others at CSU who are examining air emissions and regional impacts from oil and gas
operations, and will utilize the lessons learned from these research efforts to recommend changes
to local regulations.
Local
The local solutions include at least five mechanisms to address oil and gas operations to ensure
community concerns are addressed and residents' quality of life is protected:
• Local Government Designee — This tool establishes a staff representative who participates
in the state's review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil
and gas applications at the state level.
• Operator Agreements —A negotiated agreement between the City and any operator wishing
to conduct oil and gas operations in the City. The agreement could include additional,
prescriptive requirements such as enhanced baseline and ongoing monitoring.
• Intergovernmental Agreement with the state — An IGA could allow for the City to have
inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within
citylimits. It also provides opportunitiesfor partnering with our surrounding municipalities
on a regional basis for inspection authority.
• Surface UseAgreements A negotiated agreement between the landownerand any operator
wishing to conduct oil and gas operations providing another mechanism to obtain enhanced
conditions.
• Land Use Regulations —A set of regulations and control mechanisms that are protective of
public health and the environment. The Land Use Code amendments before Council include
Option A (a dual -track development review process) and Option B (a single-track
development review process). The regulatory options are described in greater depth below.
Land Use Regulations — Review Processes
Two options are presented related to Land Use Code regulations:
Option A: Dual -track development review process, which includes both an expedited and
standard review process
OptionB: Single-track developmentreviewprocess— Thisoptioncombinestheprescriptive
criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review process. Under this option,
all development review applications would be processed under a single review track and
required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
M
December 4, 2012
The review processes for the dual-trackdevelopment reviewprocesses are outlined in Table I below
(see Table 2 for the single-track review process). The Standard Review process requires the
operator to locate a well and operate in a manner that does not degrade quality of life (e.g.,
adjacent land uses, natural resources, water quality, air quality, visual and scenic resources, etc.).
The Standard Review process also requires operators to attend a neighborhood meeting and a
hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to the Type 2 standards currently
outlined in the Land Use Code.. The regulations outlined in the Standard Review process however,
are more goal -based than prescriptive.
Alternatively, the Expedited Reviewprocess requires operators (who voluntarily choose this option)
to meet specific, objective criteria prescribed in the review process. By meeting these more
prescriptive standards, staff proposes that public comments only be taken in a written format and
that the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services has the final decision -
'making authority.
This dual-trackreviewprocess is a model utilized by other local governments to address oil and gas
development and has achieved some success in engaging operators in meeting specific objective
criteria.
Table 1: Option A: Dual -track review process, including the standard and expedited review
processes, notice requirements, and decision -making authority.
Element.
Standard Review Process
Expedited Review Process
(Type 2 Review
Basic Development Review
Regulations
Must locate a well and operate
Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
in a manner that does not
degrade q uality of life
Notice
Nol fication sent when an
Not fication sent when an application is
Requirement
application is received, prior to
received and if an application is approved
s
a neighborhood meeting and
prior to the hearing
Public „
Written comments can be
Written comments can be provided after the
Comments
provided prior to or at the public
notification that an application has been
hearing
received
Residents and affected parties
can testify at the public hearing
Decision-
Planning and Zoning Board
Director approval
making
approval
authority
Setbacks
If not located on an existing well pad, all
operations must be 500' from an occupied
structure, water well, Natural Area or City
Park and 150' rom any propertv line
Appeals
Decisions are appealable•lo City
Decisions can. be appealed in District Court
Council
209
December 4, 2012
Table 2: Option B: Single-track review process
Element
Review Process
Regulations
Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
Notice
Notification sent when an application is received, prior to a neighborhood
Requirements
meetin and prior to the hearing
Public
Written comments can be provided prior to or at the public hearing
Comments
Residents and affected parties can testify at the public hearing
Decision-
Planning and 7oning Board approval
making
authority
Setbacks
If not located on an existing well pad, all operations must be 500'from an
occupied structure, water well, Natural Area or City Park and 150' from an
property line
Appeals
Decisions are appealable to City Council
Land Use Regulations — Proposed Standards
All new oil and gas operations will be subject to the requirements in either the standard review or
expedited review track, (Table 3) unless Option B is adopted by Council and then the standards in
expedited review will prevail.
Common areas for oil and gas operators to address in submittals include air quality, water quality,
and natural resource protection. Within each area the standards differ based upon the review
process. The conditions offered for standard review consist largely of plans and information about
proposals for preventing or mitigating community impacts.
Table 3: This table outlines the standards for air quality, water quality, natural resources
standards, general standards and reciprocal setbacks associated with both the standard and
expedited reviews.
Option A Option B
Regulation Standard
Review Expedited Review
Air Quality
Minimize all
95% VOC
98% VOC destruction
98% VOC destruction
emissions
(Volatile
Organic
Compounds)
destruction
Flares and
-No open flares
-No open flares
-No open flares
combustion
-Automatic
-Automatic.ilarne ignition
-Automatic flame ignition
devices
flame ignition
system with surveillance
syslem with surveillance
system
210
December 4, 2012
Regulation
Pollution
Prevention
Containment
Pneumatic
Controllers
Standard
Review
-Leak Detection
Program
Required
Option A
Expedited Review
-Air Quality Mitigation plan
required
- Leak Detection Program
required
-Reduce methane emissions
during maintenance
Must ensure no Require Closed Loop Pitless
significant systems
Must ensure no
significant
Electric Engines Required for
Pumping units
Use no or low bleed devices
1,f61- pronping units
compressors
Green Must ensure no Capture gas during completion
Completions significant or use completion combustion
degradation devices rather than flare or
vent
Air Quality
Monitoring
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
air quality
Baseline and well completion
monitoring required, and
additional post -completion
testing ntcry be required if
changes in air quality are
identified
Water Quality
Water Quality Must ensure no Baseline monitoring within '/z
Monitoring Plan significant mile:
degradation of -Sample four sites
water quality -Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down gradient
Option B
-Air Quality Mitigation
plan required
Leak Detection Prograr
required
-Reduce methane
emissions during
maintenance
Require Closed Loop
Pitless systems
Use no or low bleed
devices
Required for pumping
units and compressors
Capture gas during
completion or use
completion combustion
devices rather than flare
or vent
Baseline and well
completion nnonitoring
required, and additional
post -completion testing
mqv be required if
changes in air quality are
Baseline monitoring
within '% mile:
-Sample four sites
-Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down
gradient
Conduct Must ensure no Monitor at same locations 1, 3, Monitor at same locations
Subsequent significant and 6 years after well 1, 3, and 6 years after well
Monitoring degradation of completion completion
water qualifv
211
December 9, 20I2
Option A
Option B
Regulation
Standard
Review
Expedited Review
Soil Gas
Must ensure no
-Monitor soil gas within 90
-Monitor soil gas within
Monitoring
significant
days of well completion
90 days of well completion
degradation of
-Results may trigger additional
-Results may trigger
water quality
groundwater monitoring
additional groundwater
monitoring
Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Must ensure no
-Must be set back 500 feet from
-Cannot qualify if within
Protection
significant
a waterbody, stream, wetland,
500 feet of a waterbody,
degradation
Natural Area or Park
stream, wetland, Natural
-Compliance with all buffer
Area or Park
standards
-Compliance with all
buffer
standards
Existing
Minimize
Preservation of
Preservation of
Vegetation
disturbance
existing vegetation,
existing vegetation,
mitigation requirements I
mitigation requirements
General Conditions that apply to all oil and gas operations, regardless of the review track
selected
Emergency
Must have a plan in compliance with the International Fire Code
Response
Include emergency contact information for the operator
Trigger/threshold levels identified to determine when a state of
emergency should be declared
Spills shall be immediately reported
Establish a process for the operator to notify neighbors regarding
risks and establish a communication process
Transportation
-Access roads and access points shall be provided, reviewed, and approved
Ili, the City .
A traffic impact anal' sis shall be submitted; all street frontage shall be
improved in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards, including street trees, sidewalk, curb and gutter
Transportation fees and securities, i.e., bond or letter of credit, provided to
ensure no damage to City s1reels, including any access routes
Lighting
Except during drilling, completion or other activities where worker safety is
a concern, all lighting shall be fully shielded and not spill off the site
Spills
Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with local,
state, and federal laws
Chemical
All Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be provided to the City and
Disclosure
Emergency Personnel
Noise
Use an acouslically insulated cover to enclose the rnolor or engine
All production equipment used shall comply with the noise levels in our
Municipal Code in residential zones
212
December 4, 2012
Option A Option B
Regulation
Standard
Expedited Review
Review
Reciprocal setbacks — applies to future residential development proposals in proximity of oil
and gas operations
Abandoned and
Setback ranges from 20-50 feet from the abandoned and plugged well, base
plugged wells
on screening, berming, and fencing options
Any oil and gas
Setback ranges fi-ain 150-250 feet from all other wells, based on screening,
well that has not
berming and. fencing options
been plugged and
From a safeh1 perspective, the niinimmn setback should never be less than
abandoned
150'
FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Land Use Code regulations, in either Option A or Option B will require
interdisciplinary oversight in the development review process beyond the typical development
review process. For example, additional staff time from representatives from Environmental
Sustainability and Utilities will be required to evaluate the air and water quality elements of any
proposed oil and gas operation.
If Council indicates staff should continue to pursue the non -regulatory options, e.g., the Local
Government Designee, Intergovernmental Agreements for inspection authority, etc., then the
financial requirements from the City will increase. Funds for these efforts have been allocated
through the 2013-2014 Budget (Offer 197.2 Oil and Gas Liaison).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
While the proposed Land Use Code regulations are designed to protect the City's quality of life,
sense of place, and public health, oil and gas drilling within the city still could have significant
impacts on air quality and water quality, and there is also concern about the increased risk ofspills
and releases of hazardous materials due to an increase in use, storage and transportation ofsuch
materials. In addition, there are high volumes of truck and heavy equipment associated with oil
fields.
In addition to these impacts, well pads and service roads are fragmenting wildlife habitat, on a
massive scale in northeastern Colorado and in other communities throughout the western United
States. The City's Natural Areas, both within and outside of the City, are threatened by this
fragmentation. While there is conflicting technical information regarding air and water quality
threats, there is little doubt that oil and gas drilling would negatively affect the environment in the
community and does not support the City's goals for sustainability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff presents the following options to the Council for consideration:
213
December 4, 2012
Option A: Dual -track development review process
This option includes both expedited and standard review.
• The expedited review track requires operators to meet specific, objective criteria and agree
to increased setbacks, e.g., 500 feet from an occupied structure, water body, natural area,
or City park and ISO feet from any property line.. By electing to meet these more
prescriptive standards, a public hearing and neighborhood meeting are not required.
Instead, notification is provided when an application is received, and if an application is
approved. Written comments can be submitted to the Director during the review process.
The Director has the final decision -making authority.
• The standard review track requires the operator to locate a well and operate in a manner
that does not significant degrade our quality of life. All standard review applications are
subject to a neighborhood meeting and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Board. All Board decisions are appealable to the City Council.
Option B: Single-track development review process
This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the expedited review trackwith the standard review
process. Under this option, all development review applications would be processed under a single
review track and be required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Option C. Moratorium
Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to prevent new oil and gas operations
within their jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to
allow the state to address its rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality
regulations.
Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is currently addressing its rules by
considering amendments to water sampling and monitoring as well as addressing well setbacks and
noise. The City secured Party Status for both rulemaking hearings, making Fort Collins the only
city with such status and providing the City with an opportunity to submit comments on the state's
proposals, recommend alternatives, and a greater length of time to speak before the Commission.
The state is reviewing its existing setback rules. New rules are anticipated to be in place early in
2013. Setbacks for new wells from existing homes are an important consideration for several
reasons — there is uncertainty about emissions from well sites and the process of drilling and
maintaining a well site could cause noise, traffic and light impacts. The current setbacks for new
wells are 150 feet from an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area and 500 feet from
some structures like hospitals; schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing
the state setbacks from homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. The City of Fort Collins will seek
additional setback distance, greater powers for residents in influencing site location proposals, and
protection for community assets like natural areas and parks.
214
December 4, 2012
Water quality is another area that the Commission is currently addressing. The proposal under
consideration adopts an industry -sponsored voluntaryprogram and makes thatprogram mandatory.
Under the program, baseline groundwater quality samples will be collected from two existing
groundwater features, such as permitted and registered groundwater wells or groundwater seeps
and springs, which are located within 112 mile of the surface location ofnew oil and gas well pads,
or additional wells on existing well pads. These samples will be collected before drilling begins.
A second sample will be collected from each groundwater feature within one to three years after
drilling is completed. If the state's rules on water quality monitoring are amended, the City may
also need to modify proposed Land Use Code regulations as presented in Option A or B or in ,
development submittal requirements.
Staff also requests direction on suggested state, regional, and "other" local options, including:
• Engage in stakeholder processes
• Continue with Local Government, Designee
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the State for inspection authority
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the County for the GMA
• Advocate for more legislative change
• Consider entering into an operator agreement with the producer of the Fort Collins Field
• Develop a "model " surface use agreement that can be used for any city -owned lands
BOARD / COMISSION RECOMMENDA TION
City staffpresented the proposedLand Use Code regulations and associated non -regulatory options
to numerous City boards and commissions.
Formal recommendations were made by the Water Board (8-1), the Natural Resources Advisory
Board (6-1), and the Air Quality Advisory Board (7-0) to support the Standard (Type 11)' and
Expedited (Basic Development Review) processes and associated regulations.
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted 6-0 to support the use of standard review
when considering applications on City -owned Natural Areas. The Board further recommended a
six month temporary moratorium on new oil and gas applications to provide staff with additional
time to develop additional options.
While the Air Quality Advisory Board indicated support for the Standard and Expedited review, the
Board also expressed additional non -regulatory options that staff should pursue. These
recommendations are included in Attachment 14.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A multidisciplinary City staff team worked to develop an understanding of the oil and gas industry,
community concerns related to industry practices, and the statewide regulatory processes in place.
This group researched industry exploration and extraction practices, working closely with peer
municipalities throughout the Front Range to identify and incorporate the best practices of other
Colorado municipalities into local regulation ofthe industry. The research process included local
focus group meetings, formation of an Oil and Gas Advisory Committee that included
representatives from eight City boards and commissions, talking with state experts and meetings
215
December 4, 2012
with Colorado State University professors and researchers, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission staff, and the local oil and gas operators.
The Oil and Gas Advisory Committee was created to gather input from a diverse group of boards
and commissions. The group met three times as public meetings and provided input to staffon draft
regulations. The Committee included self-selected representatives from eight City boards and
commissions, including the Air Quality Advisory Board, Economic Advisory Commission, Energy
Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and
Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and Water Board.
Staff conducted meetings with small groups of interested citizens. Residents of the Hearthfire
subdivision met with staff and continued to communicate over the course of the project: Outreach
included a focus group with representatives of local environmental groups before and after the
development ofdraftregulations. Staffinetwith Don't Frackthe Fort, agroup generated bymutual
concern over hydraulic fracturing in the community, four times.
Staffattended numerous public meetings on the subject of oil and gas development hosted by other
groups."
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, discussed the
options available for Council consideration: a dual -track development review option, a single-track
development review option, and a moratorium. She reviewed the existing wells within the City and
growth management area and noted the only operational field within City limits involves oil
production, not gas production. Staff is recommending that Council adopt some type of regulations
given rapidly changing technology in the drilling industry.
Kadrich reviewed the State agencies which permit and regulate the oil and gas industry and
reviewed the regional aspects of potential regulations. The County does not currently consider an
oil and.gas permit to be development activity.
Kadrich detailed the three options available for Council consideration and discussed the proposed
regulations.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported the moratorium option.
Dr. Milt Garrett, 720 Kirkwood, supported a ban on all fracking.
Laurie Brunswig, 1905 Ridgewood, Water Boardmember, supported the moratorium option.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the moratorium option.
John Fye,1405 Briarwood Road, supported the moratorium option.
Fred Kirsch, Community for Sustainable Energy, supported a toxic alert system.
Margo.Geppert, 2818 McKeag Drive, discussed the health risks of oil and gas drilling and supported
the moratorium option.
216
December 4, 2012
Todd Simmons, Larimer County resident, supported the moratorium option.
Debra Joy, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option and a complete ban on fracking.
Brian Hull, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Marley Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, discussed the health risks of fracking to children.
Janice Lynne, 218 South Washington, discussed the split estate doctrine and suggested it should be
revised.
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported a ban on fracking citing water contamination concerns.
Hunter Buffington, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported the moratorium option.
Mayah Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported a ban on fracking citing health risks.
Zach Heath, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Becky Boutz, 6350 Kremmers Lane, LaPorte, supported a ban on fracking.
Bill Jenkins, 710 Mathews, supported the moratorium option.
Jake Matter, 1525 Sherman Street, Denver, Assistant Attorney General representing the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, opposed the adoption of regulations or a moratorium. .
Joe Kissell, 913 West Oak, opposed hydraulic fracking and supported the moratorium option.
Leo Buslato, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Liz Pruzner, Natural Resources Advisory Board, stated the Board supports Council moving forward
with the highest level of protection for the city and personally supported the moratorium option.
Elizabeth Shudeth supported a ban on fracking, or at least a moratorium.
Paul Smith, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option.
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, opposed fracking and discussed legislation.
Robert Winkler, Northern Colorado resident, supported an indefinite moratorium on fracking.
Jim Jeffrys, 2225 Branson Street, supported- the moratorium and eventual ban on fracking.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, supported an option that would require Prospect Energy not conduct
or attempt to permit any new well or fracking within the city limits for up to six months, or until the
City approves a mutually -agreeable operating agreement between Prospect Energy and the City of
Fort Collins.
217
December 4, 2012
Zach Weeks, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium option and an eventual ban on
fracking.
Clint Rhodd, Colorado resident, stated fracking chemicals are environmentally friendly.
Dave Bell, Fort Collins resident, supported sustainable energy and a ban on fracking.
Chris Giblar, 6321 Treestead Road, supported the moratorium option.
Rudi Ziti, 1626 Fantail, stated no impacts on ground water have occurred as a result of hydraulic
fracking and stated energy needs cannot be met solely by sustainable sources. He opposed any
Council action on regulations.
Rob Willis, attorney for Prospect Energy, opposed any Council action on regulations.
Philip Friedman, Natural Resource Advisory Board, supported Option B as well as a moratorium
and ultimate ban on fracking.
Tom Hoehn, 218 South Washington, supported a ban on fracking.
Ward Giltner, Prospect Energy, opposed.Council action on regulations.
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road, supported the moratorium option and an ultimate ban on fracking.
Sarah Landry, Colorado Oil and.Gas Association, requested additional time to explore an operator
agreement with Prospect Energy and opposed the moratorium option.
Jerry Gerber, Fort Collins resident, questioned why fracking is being considered and stated it is an
extreme measure.
Mary Griggs, Prospect Energy, discussed the safety and permitted emissions of the Prospect Energy
field.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported the moratorium option.
Erin Lamb, 1476 Edgewood Court, stated the LGD process works and supported collaboration with
Prospect Energy citing the fiscal benefits of the industry.
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, supported the moratorium option.
Rico Moore, Fort Collins resident; supported a ban on fracking.
Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported a six-month moratorium upon the
submittal of a new application for drilling.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
218
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak asked what would occur should an operator who is not part of any operating
agreement pull a permit. Kadrich replied the City would immediately begin negotiations with that
operator. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, concurred.
Councilmember Horak asked about existing state setback requirements which appear to show the
majority of City of Fort Collins land area being restrictedfrom oil and gas development. Kadrich
replied that assessment is correct.
Councilmember Horak asked how many acres within the city and growth management area are
available for oil and gas development and how that would change given various setbacks.
Weinheimer .replied acreages were not examined and acquisition of that data would require
additional research. Councilmember Horak requested the information prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak asked if any work was done to look at the locations of shale deposits and the
likelihood of their development based on various setbacks. Weinheimer replied it was unclear if that
type of research was necessary based on some of the surface uses and the setbacks.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the setback requirements with respect to parks and natural
areas. Weinheimer replied there is a process called the Designated Outside Activity Area which is
part of the state setback rule -making process. There is talk of limiting the application to an ingress
and egress for emergency services. There was a recommendation from staff to consider a
recommendation to the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to exclude the use of city parks and
natural areas.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the current usage criteria. Weinheimer replied that current
criteria would be better applied to parks than natural areas.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many well permits have been pulled for the City of Fort Collins.
Kadrich replied there have been no permits pulled through the City of Fort Collins process. All
existing operating wells were permitted previously and annexed into the city.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the location of the nearest well permit around Fort Collins.
Weinheimer replied Timnath and Larimer County have both had permit activity.
Councilmember Troxell asked if staff studied geologic mapping for the Fort Collins area. Kadrich
replied the geological maps were examined for the existing Fort Collins field. Additionally, staff
met with geologists from Colorado State University regarding that field and the southeast part of
town where drilling may be a possibility.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged a better understanding of the existing geologic conditions and
a tracking of neighboring permits. He asked about the outcome of studies of odors near the existing
field. Weinheimer replied a pond feature in the Hearthfire subdivision was the cause of the odor.
Councilmember Troxell noted Options A and B have been modeled after Boulder's standards and
questioned whether they match what is needed in Fort Collins. Kadrich replied some of the
standards may not be what is required for the Fort Collins field. However, there are some areas in
the southeast part of the city limits, or near the city limits, that may be developed differently than
what is in the Fort Collins field.
219
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Manvel clarified water is not being pumped out of the ground; the water being used
is recirculated. He expressed appreciation for staff work on the item and stated he is leaning toward
a moratorium in order to get any possible regulations correct. He suggested the issues of street
maintenance, financial consequences and local impact fees should be addressed. He also noted the
water usage issue needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Manvel requested input regarding the potential tension with the Colorado State
Land Board regarding a moratorium on oil and gas development at the Soapstone Natural Area.
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, replied about a third of the minerals at Soapstone and
Meadow Springs Ranch are owned by the State Land Board. The other two-thirds are privately
owned. He expressed concern that the State may be taken aback by a moratorium.
Councilmember Manvel encouraged collaboration with the State Land Board prior to Second
Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Option C currently includes natural areas. City Attorney Roy
replied the expanded version of the Option was in Council's packet; however, the original published
version did not include natural areas.
Mayor Pro Tem made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 145,
2012, establishing a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of land use permit applications and
other applications seeking approval to conduct oil and gas extraction or related operations within
the City of Fort Collins, Option C, as provided in Council's read -before packet, on First Reading.
City Attorney Roy read the differences between the Ordinance as provided in Council's packet
versus the originally published version, which included three new whereas clauses to include the
City's natural areas and parks outside of the City limits. '
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated his comments are not directed toward Fort Collins' existing operator,
Prospect Energy. He read a passage from the staff report indicating the potential risks of drilling
and noted this moratorium is not a ban, but a time-out to allow the opportunity to ensure the next
step is the best one for the community. He stated he would like the impact to wildlife, habitat
fragmentation, and restoration to be addressed in the future.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion. The City should be willing to support
and work with Prospect Energy.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for Prospect Energy in its efforts to work with the
community.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion. He noted the City does not have any
regulatory authority over oil and gas development in the County, despite the growth management
area. He supported an operator agreement with Prospect Energy.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the events that led up to these options and stated she would support the
moratorium as the City has reached a point where the state regulations have not done exactly what
is correct for this community.
220
December 4, 2012
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak, and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that Council direct
the staff to recommend the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, at its upcoming rule -
making proceeding that the setbacks of oil and gas exploration activities from occupied buildings
be as follows: (1) new oil and gas facilities must be set back from existing homes at least 1,000 feet
unless an applicant obtains local government approval and homeowner consent to locate the
operation closer, which approval would be obtained only under the following conditions: (a) cities
and operators would have at least one community meeting regarding the application where input
could be provided by citizens, which input could alter the location or other characteristics of the
proposed oil and gas facility, (b) the community meeting would be posted publically for all
interested parties to attend and residents living within yz mile would receive written notice of the
meeting at least two weeks prior to the meeting, (c) if the proposed setback distance conflicted with
the other community goals, such as the protection of the natural areas and parks and zoning
compatibility, then the city and the operator would have to negotiate an acceptable drilling and
operation site; (2) as a heavy industrial process, oil and gas production facilities would have to be
sited in industrial zones or other zoning districts deemed appropriate by the city; (3) drilling and
production operations in natural areas and community parks should be prohibited; (4) further study
of human environmental health should be conducted to ensure that setbacks are appropriate.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the Sierra Club has recommended a setback of 2,000 feet and asked
that their research be analyzed.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson clarified that staff should continue to work on regulations during the
moratorium period.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. in order to complete the business on the agenda.
Councilmember Poppaw requested an estimate on the time needed for the next four items. City
Manager Atteberry replied the next three items would likely be five minutes each and the final item
has a brief staff report.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to extend
the meeting only to 11:00 p.m.
221
December 4, 2012
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Ohlson,
Weitkunat, Troxell and Manvel.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on the motion to extend the meeting was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Ohlson, Weitkunat,
Troxell and Manvel. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 146, 2012,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review
of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City
Manager.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Ciry Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 197,203
Vacation (30 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,640
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
588
Life Insurance
345
Long Term Disability
828
ICMA (457)
5,916
ICMA (401)
19,720
Car Allowance
9,000
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 243,365
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City
222
December 4, 2012
Manager, City Attorney and. Municipal Judge will, be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Manager Darin Atteberry's
2013 salary. "
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the City's pay philosophy is to pay
employees a salary that is market -based and competitive, allowing the City to attract and retain
quality employees needed to execute the vision and mission of the City of Fort Collins. City
employees will be granted merit increases based on performance and position in the range and skill
level increases will occur based on attainment, demonstration, and performance. City Manager data
is gathered nationally and within the Front Range. The City Manager is 9% behind the national
market.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated a responsible Council should not be considering a
salary increase for the City Manager, but should be considering suspending him based on the loan
made for the RMI2 project.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 146, 2012, on First Reading, with a five percent salary increase inserted. He noted this increase
is almost double that of the average for all City employees. He expressed appreciation for the work
of the City Manager.
Councilmember Troxell thanked City Manager Atteberry for his service to Council and the
community.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for City Manager Atteberry's leadership and service.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked City Manager Atteberry for his work and service.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Marvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 147, 2012,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review
of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City
Attorney.
223
December 4, 2012
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
2012 SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
$almy
$ 165,691
Vacation (32.5 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,640
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
588
Life Insurance
289
Long Term Disability
696
ICMA (457)
4,971
ICMA (401)
16,569
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 198,569
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Attorney Roy's 2013 salary."
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the City Attorney compensation is 2.1 %
behind the national market.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated tax payers fund these salaries. He commented on the
RMI2 loan.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 147, 2012, on First Reading, with a three percent salary increase inserted.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for City Attorney Roy's work and service.
Councilmember Horak asked why the regional market is being considered for the City Attorney
salary comparisons. Sharkey replied it was a market that was identified in 2008 by Council for
review for the City Manager and the City Attorney. National data was collected since 2008.
Councilmember Horak stated the western regional market is not relevant when looking at this
position.
Councilmember Manvel agreed and requested that staff examine that issue.
224
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Poppaw expressed appreciation for City Attorney Roy's work for Council and the
community.
Councilmember Troxell commended City Attorney Roy on his service.
Mayor Weitkunat commended City Attorney Roy on his professionalism and work that consistently
surpasses expectations.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson commended the integrity ofthe City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal
Judge.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Employment of the Municipal Judge, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City. Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
B. Resolution 2012-116 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
the Tenth Addendum to the Judge's Employment Agreement.
City. Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review
of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the
Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2012-116 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire December 31, 2014
and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's employment agreement to reflect
the change in term.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Article VII, Section 1 ofthe Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed far a term
of two years. Kathleen M Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective
July 1, 1989. Resolution 2010-074 reappointed Judge Lane for a two-year term ending on
December 31, 2012. This Resolution reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire
December 31, 2014 and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's employment
agreement to reflect her new term.of office.
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
225
December 4, 2012
recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and
the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary (0.8 FTE)
S 95,436
Vacation (30 days per year)
Medical Insurance
8,640
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
588
Life Insurance
167
Long Term Disability
401
ICMA (457)
2,863
,
ICMA 401
9,544
Total Monetary Compensation
S 118,764
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in
sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the
ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane's 2013 salary."
Amy Sharkey, Compensation and Benefits Manager, stated the Municipal Judge salary is 6%behind
the Colorado market.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 148, 2012, on First Reading, inserting a four percent salary increase. .
Councilmember Manvel commented on Judge Lane's outstanding work and service.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated it may take two years for the Municipal Judge and City Manager
salaries to come even with market. Both employees were ranked very high in performance.
Councilmember Horak stated the total compensation package should be considered rather than just
salary. He encouraged staff to examine that topic.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Judge Lane for her service and increased efficiencies.
Councilmember Troxell commended Judge Lane on her service.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for Judge Lane's professionalism.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
226
December 4, 2012
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-116. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Ordinance No. 149, 2012,
Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full
Ownership and Control of the Applicant or Developer, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before
an application can be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must
own or control all of the property that is the subject of the application. Staff recommends that the
City Council amend the LUC to give the Director discretion to allow applications to proceed
through the review process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject property is yet
controlled by the applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the
applicant has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be
developed. The Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be
contrary to the public interest, and the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents
related to the processing of the application until the applicant had gained control of the entire
property. The applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against any third parry claims
related to the processing of the application.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Currently the Section 2.2.3 (C) (1) of the LUC limits the Director from submitting applications to
the Planning and Zoning Board and/or Hearing Of until such time as documentation is
presented that the applicant "has the requisite power, authority, clear title, good standing,
qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the development and/or activities requested in the
development application. ". Further, Section 2, 2.4 of the LUC states that an application cannot be
processed or presented to a decision maker until the Director determines that it is complete and
ready for review, and the determination ofsufficiency cannot be based on the perceived merits of
the development proposal.
The intent of these provisions appears to be to avoid expending City resources on proposals that
may never come to fruition. In most situations, this makes sense. Sometimes, however, these
requirements can cause unnecessary, costly delays that may work to the detriment not only of the
developer but also the City.
Therefore, staffis recommending that these L UCprovisions be amended to allow for moreflexibility
in the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in determining whether
227
December 4, 2012
the review of a particular development proposal can and should move ahead in advance of all
submittal requirements being met.
Additionally, thefact that an application may be allowed to proceed through the reviewprocess will
not entitle the applicant to actually commence development ofthe proposed project unless and until
all other relevant Land Use Code provisions have been met, including the execution of a final plat
and the issuance of building permits.
The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the decision maker
under the provisions of this Section shall not cause a post denial re -submittal delay under the
provisions of Section 2.2.11(D) (9).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The LUC amendment will allow for
more flexibility in the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in
determining whether the review of a particular development proposal can and should move ahead
in advance of all submittal requirements being met.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
If approved on First Reading, the Land Use Code amendment will be considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board at a special meeting in mid -December so that the Council would have the Board's
recommendation prior to Second Reading on December 18. "
Mayor Weitkunat recused herself from the discussion of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending
Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing ofApplications for the Development
of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership and Control of the Applicant or Developer, due to a
potential conflict of interest.
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated this item is
a proposal to examine what submittal requirements would be necessary in order for the Director to
move a project development toward one of the hearing boards when the land may not be under full
ownership or control of the applicant.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, asked if this Land Use Code amendment would allow developers
to overwhelm the City with applications based on land they have little intent of acquiring unless they
can push through the City process.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Land Use Code should protect the citizens. He
questioned whether or not this change would protect citizens.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested input regarding Mr. Cunniff s question. Kadrich replied the
developer or applicant would need to have a majority ownership in the development and the process
is quite costly in order to get a project to hearing.
Councilmember Troxell requested staff input regarding what would be detrimental to the public
interest with regard to accepting an application for development review. Kadrich replied she would
228
December 4, 2012
look at the totality of the application, the other information that has been submitted relative to the
ownership of the property, and look for something in the developer's proposal that would be
detrimental to the public interest if this project was reviewed. Going through the process does not
allow the applicant or developer to build upon property of which they do not have entire ownership.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this process is necessary for possible future eminent domain
discussions. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative and stated processing the application is not
a prerequisite to the URA Board's ability to authorize the acquisition of property.
Councilmember Manvel stated this process appears to make eminent domain a more viable option.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson questioned why this Ordinance was presented so quickly. City Manager
Atteberry acknowledged this tool will be very helpful with the Foothills Mall redevelopment project,
which has been an identified economic development project for at least the last eight years.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the Director will be able to determine an application is not
detrimental to the public good. City Attorney Roy replied this is a standard used elsewhere in the
Land Use Code for various decision -makers. Council could direct staff to develop more specific
criteria.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 149, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated this is a tool needed for certain land developments.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion as this tool reflects the more complex,
infill projects.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's note: Mayor Weitkunat returned at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Manvel received support from other Councilmembers to direct staff to work on the
issue of homelessness in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Troxell stated Boulder is considering a ban on retail marijuana stores in light of
Amendment 64, prior to the state regulations being developed. He requested that the City
Attorney's Office research the reasoning behind this type of ban and the possibility of bringing the
issue before Council.
Councilmember Horak stated he is willing to consider the issue.
City Attorney Roy stated the State has an obligation to develop state regulations by July 1, 2013.
The City has an obligation to develop regulations by October; however, the City would only begin
to license businesses under those regulations if the State failed to develop regulations by July, or if,
229
December 4, 2012
having developed them, they failed to begin issuing licenses by the following January. He stated,
in his opinion, Council does not have a decision to make until the middle of 2013.
Councilmember Horak requested a work session item in order to provide the public and Council
with information on timing and direction.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
y OF.FOi?;,
-.0 M yor
(r� : r
ATTEST: �
. 17 �� v,
0 ,
City Clerk
230