The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016CV144 - FARVER V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 001A - EX A - LETTER TO FARVERS� � 1 Iluuutau»lttl�lry uuuuuiou,�uu4 444 inmulllu�;• ��2 � I� � uul� �uratty onmu�uilu� �, �bmmuolaf ��oi�mu�mt ilu" 111��I�I�tnU hlw iio �� ` �� 11111 mollll llk �m ii ��iuuuuii�ui�l��14411ti�55tititi�ti��1��111111111�I�U��lll�ll�l��p�11�1�1�1111�1 Ulllll�ouu��nl�luuuululllllllllllluluma�„��n��„��,, „ April 23, 2013 Craig and Virginia Farver 1,214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Farver, iMfiltles r� g ,t ejectrx stomfwater wastewater water FILED #M g+ OMB E trept a RISC080522 7 1. Ofl ][f._r 970L224.60tj3 A TE FILED: May 17, 2016 ut"itreS@,"Cgov roCASE NUMBER: 2016CV 144 frgnv c;ra.briutilities We received your letter dated April I2, 2013 notifying Fort Collins Utilities of your complaint and notice of investigation as related to digital electric meters. While we believe that many of your concerns appear to be based on misinformation and misunderstandings about the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project, we respect your right to your opinions and beliefs. For your reference, attached is a copy of the letter we provided in response to your earlier notification to the City of Fort Collins, dated July 21, 2011. Please note in that letter the conclusions of Dr. Bruce Cooper, Medical Director of the Health District of Northern Larimer County, who evaluated the radio emissions associated with the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. In an effort to address some of the recent questions and concerns raised in your April letter, the following is offered; The metering devices being used by the City of Fort Collins are consistent with best practices. This program and project is subject to the authoritgeneral industry and jurisdiction of the Fort Collins City Council. The City of Fort Collins does not share your interpretation with respect to the metering reasonably triggering questions and/or concerns regarding surveillance, privacy or endangerment of the public. Applicable rates and fees for utility services are as approved by the City of Fort Collins City Council. These rates and fees may be found on the City's website at ht,t �z,�fc,��tl�;t ta�ti il�tml Sec 26- �2 Utility biIl and account charges authorized; proceeduresprocedures_ Please under st�'��•��' the utility meteringat our home is owned, operated, and maintained by the City of Fort Collins nd that Utilities. Metering is a part of the City Utilities service delivery system owned, operated, and maintained by the City. As a part of the terms of receiving utility services, customers are required to allow the City to provide metering. It is the utilities' responsibility to select, maintain and operate as needed. Permitting installation and maintenance of meters is a condition of continued electric and p,annmmwumm„u,„,,,.. water service. Based on the concerns expressed in your letters,1 understand that you prefer to receive Electric and Water through the use of manually read water and electric metering. That option is available to you at a cost of $11 per month. Please advise if this is not the service option that you prefer. Sincer Z!Y' Steve Catanact Utilities Light and Power Manager qof III n pr November 19, 2013 Subject. Notice of Termination of Utilities Service Dear Utilities Customer. Utilities elecbilc • storlS avatar - wastewstar r ester 700 Wood St. PO Sox 580 Fori Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6700 970.221.6619 fax 970.224.6003 TOD VVWttas@fcgov.cam F gOl, G aM/utllitres tort Collins ULilides leas pi-auided multiple cunlrnunications f egardIng the need to Upgrade 45 electric and/or water metering equipment at your property, including notification that continued refusal to allow meter upgrades will result in service termination. You must contact Utilities now at 970.221.6718 to schedule an appointment for immediate installation of upgraded meter equipment to avoid termination of service. If we have not installed upgraded meter equipment by December 2, 2013, electric and/or water utility service will be terminated to your premise. Utilities will reconnect service at your premises only during normal business hours (Monday -Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm) once you have allowed access for the purpose of installing upgraded metering equipment. If service is disconnected, call 970.221.6718 to arrange for reconnection. Service restoration may take 24 hours or longer. The customer is responsible for preparing the property for restoration of electric and/or water service. The City of fort Collins is not responsible for damage that may result from failure to prepare for restoration of service. If you choose not to contact Utilities to arrange for installation of upgraded metering equipment, electric and/or water service will be terminated at your premise after December 2, 2013. Gendd L. orgemen Anne B. Jargenscn uti' Todd A. Brawneil Rebecca M. Pepin Malthexr A. Crowther Robert G Hancock Blian!_ l.anrence -Ilwmtas \". HcxBingcr _--..,..__ __ _--•_ _-- --..�, -- November 27, 2013 Steve Catanach City of Fart Collins 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re. Notice of Termination of Utilities Service Mr. Catanach: 900 Snulh %Sails Slnct Suite Ifie la�ttg.twrs, C'() 8050" Tel --03.67&05Wj rax: 30 ,678.116, Sent Ka U.S. Please be advised that Mrs. Ruth Ann Shay has retained this firm to represent her in relation to a threat by the City of Fort Collins to terminate power to her home on December 2. 2013. We are in receipt of your November 19, 2013 letter in which this threat is conveyed. Within this letter, you inform Mrs. Shay there is need for an upgrade to electric metering equipment located at her residence with address 2937 Sombrero Lane. Fort Collins. Co 80525. Further, you state the deadline for this upgrade is December 2.2013. Lastly, you assert that each customer is responsible for preparing the property for restoration in the event power is terminated. You provide no basis for these actions. As well, you fail to cite the authority under which you are taking these actions. Of specific concern to our client is that she is a cancer survivor and is, therefore, very sensitive to radio frequency electromagnetic waves. As you know, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified electromagnetic fields produced by such things as cellular phones as a possible cause for cancer. As we understand it, the new devices you wish to install utilize a technology akin to that used in wireless phones to transmit data. If so, such a device may therefore place those in its vicinity at risk of cancer, if such exposure is significant. While there is not definitive proof to illustrate this may occur, there is also no definitive proof to discount this. Based on a Review of Health Effects Related to Smart Meters, provided to the City by Bruce Cooper, MD, MSPH on July 5, 2011. your own expert states more research is needed to reduce the uncertainty about the impacts of long term exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic waves on health; and that this research is on -going. The threat to turn the power off to the home of an elderly cancer survivor in the middle of winter is a rather extreme measure for the City to take given the nature of the maintenance requested. The extreme nature of this measure is further highlighted by the fact that the meter 916 Tenth street Qmky. CO 80631 Tel: 970,3a4.ows Fax: 870.35 I.842 t utlltne9 eleotrla . slomweater - wastewater. water 700 Wood SI. PO Box 590 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.07M 970.221.6619 fax . 970.224.6M TDD ufilitles6kgov.com . fcgovcwVuVifles March 7, 2014 Subject: $11/Month Meter Reading Fee Starting April 2014 Dear Utilities Customer: Fort Collins Utilities is committed to providing quality customer service throughout the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. The electric and/or water meters currently at your premises have very limited functionality and require manual reading. To rover the costs of manual meter reading, an $11 fee will be added to your monthly bill starting in April. if you would like to avoid the $11 monthly fee, call 970-212-2900, ext. 6, (TDD 970-224-6003), to schedule an appointment to upgrade the meters at your property. Call center hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays except Wednesday, when hours are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. if you leave a message after business hours, a representative will return your call. Note: It is your responsibility to contact Utilities and arrange for meter upgrades prior to the start of your monthly $11 fee. Please be aware that ongoing maintenance and replacement of water and/or electric meters to ensure equipment accuracy and consistency is a normal part of service delivery. If the meter at your property has not been upgraded in the last year, you may receive a separate notification about required meter replacement. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Catanach Light & Power Manager tld011IPIDUNNI NB�NplpgHryi. dUilglpl� 'il�uryufrylf�u� Hry� Ililiufl011 R��` N�CNh��Iplfl1p�I Ia;��MW NNNddd411V1 �NN&N Yfid% ��IIIN I� �� dklN Iddtlj ,��`>w'4 �Iu NigRHbpNNN�� IlMuuo!�d NN ull � �NdaiC �i��l��NiflN66ifidNNNIq�1Nn�u�muiu�uu��uHH�Nd,„Rn� ,,, April 21, 2015 Virginia Farver 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Mrs. Farver, City Manager's office City Hall r'F - PYf? f3,- PC) 1� x 4{] 970 221.6505 q-NV 2.`4 tltil", !=fx. I appreciated the opportunity on April 13 to discuss your February 10 Colorado Open Records Act request, specifically related to: Any and all Resolutions, ordinances or other formal records of decision approved or adopted by City Council: 1.) that authorize the removal of analog electric meters from customers' homes and businesses and the replacement of those meters with digital smart meters. In the course of our conference call you provided clarification, with Mr. Mark Graham, on the documentation you were requesting. In the end, we both understood that the City of Fort Collins does not have the document you described in your request, and as discussed in our conference call. Subsequently I have received your letter dated April 14, 2015 in which you requested a better understanding of the City Council process managed for the Advanced Meter Fort Collins (AMFC) project to City Council. Specifically you state: Here is what I have in mind for your letter to me: you description of the whole picture of the process by which the 04, decided to replace the electric meters including the elements I mentioned and any other elements that you think were important in that process. Your letter does not frame an inquiry based on the Colorado Open Records Act and additionally there is no current public record outlining that sequence of events. Nevertheless, the City has endeavored to provide you a description of the events below that should help to describe the approval process for the AMFC project. The pursuit of the AMFC project began in 2008, and was referenced in the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan as "SmartGrid, Advanced Metering Infrastructure, Pricing, Conservation" as one of the menu of project options to support Climate Action PIan goals. In 2009, the viability of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project was explored by Utilities staff and, as a result, a Light and Power budget offer was developed for City Council consideration as part of 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 September 23, 2015 City of Fort Collins Risk Management Division, the City Council, the City Attorney P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Hand delivered and sent via U.S. Postal Service certified mail Regarding a notice and claim of injuries and damages related to the Advanced Metering Fort Collins project per the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101 et seq To the City Council, the City Attorney, and the Risk Management Division, This is my notice and claim of injuries and damages that the City of Fort Collins ("City") and Fort Collins Utilities ("FCU") have caused me through the electric portion of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project ("Project") and my demand for financial compensation for my injuries and damages. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/sustainability-leadership/advanced-meter-fort-collins/ This notice and claim is in accordance with the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), C.R.S. 24-10-101 (2015), TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE 10. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, 24-10-101 et seq. Please acknowledge in writing your receipt of this letter and the attachments at your earliest convenience. Insofar as permitted by Colorado's Government Immunity Act ("CGIA") and / or other applicable state laws, this claim is filed on behalf of claimant and all other persons similarly situated, broadly speaking. That is, other City residents and businesses from whose homes and places of business the City or FCU removed the original electric meter, which is known as an analog meter or other similar names, to whom the City or FCU gave a smart electric meter or "digital analog" meter, who were charged a special charge on the electric bill not charged to other residents called a "manual meter reading charge" or similar names for one or more months, and who paid such charge. Like claimant, these other City residents did not know, and unlike claimant probably do not know to this day, that the City Council never approved the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project, the removal of the original meters from homes and businesses, or the installation of the smart electric meters or digital analog meters. These residents assumed that all of the above had been properly approved by the City Council as required by Colorado law and the City's Charter. If the CGIA and / or other laws do not permit claimant to file a claim on behalf of others, then this claim is filed only on behalf of claimant. Elements of this notice and claim according to COLORADO REVISED STATUTES C.R.S. 24- 10-109 (2015), TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE 10. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY are: (2) The notice shall contain the following: (a) The name and address of the claimant and the name and address of his attorney, if any; (b) A concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, including the date, time, place, and circumstances of the act, omission, or event complained of; (c) The name and address of any public employee involved, if known; (d) A concise statement of the nature and the extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered; (e) A statement of the amount of monetary damages that is being requested. Information required: (2)(a) The claimant is Virginia Farver. The address of the claimant is 1214 Belleview Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526. The claimant is not represented by an attorney. (2)(b) Colorado law C.R.S. 24-10-109 (2)(b) requires "A concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, including the date, time, place, and circumstances of the act, omission, or event complained of;". Claimant will provide such a statement first. Claimant will also provide a more detailed and thorough statement of the factual basis of the claim, etc. so that the City can know the full factual basis of the claim and can evaluate it. Claimant will also address the statute of limitations and claimant's compliance with it. The concise statement of the factual basis of the claim is as follows. The basic argument is this. The City of Fort Collins and Fort Collins Utilities spent approximately $31.4 million on the electric portion of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project ("Project"), which among other things entailed the removal from every residence and business in the City of the original electric meters, which can be referred to as analog electric meters, and the installation in their place of "smart" electric meters or, in some cases, "digital analog" meters. Analog electric meters are a safe, reliable type of electric meter that has been refined and improved by the electric utility industry over several decades. They were the industry standard worldwide from the beginning of the electric grid until the last ten years or so. In the last ten years or so many publicly and privately owned electric utilities have removed the analog meters from customers' homes and businesses and replaced them with so called "smart" electric meters, or simply smart meters. City Council never approved the Proiect or the actions that the Project entailed Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 2 Unfortunately the City failed to follow open government processes to protect the substantive due process rights of City residents as required by Colorado law and the City Charter. This notice and claim will include details later on. In a letter to claimant dated April 23, 2013 the City correctly stated, speaking of the Project, "This program and project is subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Fort Collins City Council." A copy of that letter is attached to this notice and claim. The City Council, which is the only entity or body with the legal authority to authorize the Project, never authorized the Project and never authorized the City or FCU by to remove the original meter or to install a smart electric meter or a digital analog meter on claimant's home, or businesses or the other residents' homes — actions undertaken as parts of the Project. In particular the City Council never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion to approve or authorize the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project or its key components: the removal of all (or substantially all) customers' original meters and / or the installation or deployment of smart meters or digital analog meters in their place. This decision appears to have been made by City staff. However, City staff does not have the authority to approve or authorize the above. Proof of the claim made in the preceding four paragraphs is found in the City's letter dated April 21, 2015 signed by Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager and addressed to claimant, in the attachment to this notice and claim titled "Phone conference with City of FC April 13 2015.docx", and in the section of this document titled "These are the kev events that led to this notice and claim" in paragraphs 1 through 6 on page 14-15 and paragraphs 13 through 23 on pages 16-1 S. More details follow in this notice and claim on pages 13-14. The City and / or FCU never notified claimant or, to the best of claimant's knowledge and belief, any other resident or business in Fort Collins that the City Council had never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion as described in the preceding five paragraphs. Because there was never such an ordinance, resolution or motion and because City staff lacks the authority to make such a decision (approving the Project), the Project and the actions that the City and / or FCU took in furtherance of the Project (including but not limited to the removal of the analog meters and the installation of smart electric meters or digital analog meters) were unauthorized, illegal, invalid and of no effect. The City approves a manual meter reading harg_e Five hundred and twenty five (525) Fort Collins residents, including claimant, objected to the smart meter and refused the installation of a smart meter on their homes. Claimant wrote a letter to the City dated April 12, 2013 describing in detail her objection and the factual and legal basis for it. Claimant sent that letter via certified mail. A copy of that letter and the certified mail receipt is attached to this notice and claim. Claimant also wrote to the City via certified mail on September 19, 2013 objecting to the smart meter program and exercising her right to not be forced to have a smart electric meter on her home. A copy of that letter and certified mail receipt are attached to this notice and claim. Subsequently the City approved one or more ordinances to purportedly approve and authorize a special charge, called a "manual meter reading charge", to be charged monthly to those customers who exercised their right under City policy to ask the City and / or FCU to not install Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 3 a smart electric meter on their home. The City and / or FCU installed a non -transmitting meter known as a "digital analog meter" when they removed the analog meter from these residents' homes. The City Council approved Ordinance 33, 2012 on May 1, 2012 and Ordinance 17, 2014 on February 4, 2014, both of which purportedly authorized the manual meter reading charge. The time of the approval of these Ordinances is unknown to claimant but most likely during the City Council meeting on each of the above dates. The place of the approval of these Ordinances is the meeting room of the City Council. On March 7, 2014 the City sent claimant a letter addressed to "Dear Utilities Customer". The subject was "$11/Month Meter Reading Fee Starting April 2014." The letter was signed by Steve Catanach, Light & Power Manager. This letter said in part, "To cover the costs of manual meter reading, an $11 fee will be added to your monthly bill starting in April." A copy of that letter is attached to this notice and claim. The City and FCU apparently intended the digital analog meters to be sort of an accommodation of the objections of claimant and other city residents and these residents' to the smart electric meters and their expressed wishes to keep their original electric meter. Although these residents' who objected to the installation of a smart electric meter on their home did so for various reasons, for many of them the reason was to protect their family's health. These residents were aware of the hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies from all around the world, including many published recently (see for example the Biolnitiative Report 2012 at http://www.bioinitiative.org/), showing the biological effects and harm of the microwave and radio frequency radiation such as is transmitted thousands of times per day by smart electric meters. To these residents it was a health issue. They wanted to protect their health and their family's health from this radiation and were willing to pay a special charge each month to do so. For many residents it was also a privacy issue. Smart electric meters have the ability to record the minute by minute and second by second uses of every light and appliance in every room of the house, giving government agencies and their contractors unprecedented knowledge of a resident's comings and goings and habits. This is arguably an unconstitutional search of a home in the absence of a search warrant - and there is never a search warrant with a smart electric meter. The manual meter reading charge, a direct result of the Project, was indirectly unauthorized and illegal As stated above the underlying policy, the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project was never authorized by the City Council as required by Colorado law and the City Charter. The smart electric meter, the digital analog meter and the manual meter reading charge were each the direct result of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. Logically, since the Project itself was unauthorized and illegal all charges directly caused by the Project are also unauthorized and illegal, notwithstanding separate ordinances. The simple legal principle is that the City and FCU cannot have an authorized and legal charge or fee arising out of an unauthorized and illegal program, policy or project. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 4 More broadly, the City cannot charge claimant or any other resident or business fees or charges for a program, policy or project that was not authorized by the City Council. In other words, if not for the Project there would never have been any need for the digital analog meter or any other kind of meter in lieu of the smart meter, nor any need for the manual meter reading charge. Claimant's electricity use would still be measured by the analog electric meter that was originally on claimant's home and the City or FCU would not be charging claimant a manual meter reading charge. The City and FCU cannot directly or indirectly cause claimant or any other resident to have to pay charges or incur expenses without City Council approval. As a result all of claimant's expenses directly caused by the Project, the removal and replacement of electric meters were injuries that the City and FCU caused to claimant and subject to recovery through the CGIA. There is no way to retroactively_ authorize a program. policy or project The ordinances authorizing the special charges did not serve as either de facto or de jure authorizations for the underlying policy, the Project. There is no provision in Colorado law or the City Charter allowing the City Council to retroactively authorize a policy or project; in this case one that had already been implemented, money had been spent and meters removed and replaced, despite the fact that the policy or project was not authorized by the City Council at the time. Authorizing the appropriation is not equivalent to or a substitute for. authorizing the program, policy or Moject Ordinance No. 043, 2010, approved on May 18, 2010, only approved the appropriation of money to pay for the project. That ordinance did not approve the project itself. Nor did any other ordinance, resolution or motion. The same can be said of Ordinance. No. 84, 2010, which purportedly authorized the funding of the advanced metering infrastructure project. To comply with Colorado law and the City Charter, the City Council had to approve and authorize the project itself, not just the appropriation for the project. The City Council never did so. Briefly, the legal argument is that due process requires the City to deliberate and make policy decisions openly. Not after the fact or surreptitiously or stealthily. See the Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972, as amended, C.R.S. 24-6-101 et seq, and the City Charter, notably sections 6 and 7. City residents had the right to be informed that the City Council was considering approving the Project, to be informed of the details of the Project, to read the proposed ordinance, motion or resolution, to read all the Project documents (because the documents would directly affect their homes and their electric bills), to research the peer reviewed scientific studies from all around the world describing the biological effects of wireless radiation including the microwave and radio frequency radiation which smart meters transmit through the air and through the walls of a house and through human bodies, sometimes thousands of times per day on average, to discuss with their families whether they wanted to be exposed to such radiation 24 hours a day and 7 days a week not only from the smart meter on their home but from the smart meters on nearby homes, to make an informed decision with the full knowledge of the proposed Project and its likely impact based on scientific research, to attend a properly noticed City Council meeting and listen to the presentations about the proposed Project, to make public comments and ask questions, and to meet with their elected City Council members to further discuss the Project, recommend Notice and claim for damages from A.MFC project, page 5 changes to it, and express their support for or opposition to it. By failing to prepare, present, discuss and vote on an ordinance, resolution or motion approving the Project the City Council deprived City residents of their due process rights to all of the above. In a word, their right to be informed of and participate in their City Council's policy making. Typically and in this case a vote on appropriation for a certain project comes only after the City Council has been through the process described in the preceding paragraph. The question of appropriation is really, "Should the City pay for the already approved Project as described in this appropriation ordinance?" It begs the question if the Project has never been approved. How to pgy fora proiect is a distinct and separate question from whether and how to do the roject. The cart must not come before the horse. The cart is appropriation and the horse is the approval of the project. Without the horse there is no need for the cart. Colorado law supports the legal analysis and interpretation presented here, in the opinion of claimant. Circumstances of the act omission or event complained of The omission complained of is the omission of any resolution, ordinance or motion, properly and duly prepared, approved by the City Council and publicized that would have authorized the Project and the removal of Fort Collins Utilities' residential and business customers' original electric meters and the replacement of those meters with smart electric meters or digital analog meters. Also, the omission of any notice from the City or FCU that the City Council had never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion to approve the Project and the removal and replacement of the electric meters. Claimant complains of these two ordinances, Ordinance 33, 2012 on May 1, 2012 and Ordinance 17, 2014 on February 4, 2014, and any other ordinances which purportedly authorized a manual meter reading charge, and of every electric bill that the City or Fort Collins Utilities sent to claimant which included this manual meter reading charge, and of the other expenses claimant had to incur because of the Project and her attempts to exercise her rights to avoid having a smart meter on her home. Because non-payment of claimant's electric bill or part thereof could have caused the City or FCU to the shut off of claimant's electricity, these electric bills forced claimant to pay the manual meter reading charge just to keep her electricity turned on. In a letter from Steve Catanach, Utilities Light and Power Manager, to claimant dated April 23, 2013 the City made this threat explicit, saying: "As a part of the terms of receiving utility services, customers are required to allow the City to provide metering. It is the utilities' responsibility to select, maintain and operate them as needed. Permitting installation and maintenance of meters is a condition of continued electric and water service." A copy of that letter is attached to this notice and claim. That is the end of the information required by Section 2(b). More details follow in this notice and claim. (2)( c) Claimant does not know the public employee involved in removing the original electric meter from claimant's home and installing a smart electric meter, or involved in removing the smart electric meter and replacing it with the replacement meter at customer's request. Those employees would have been employees of the City, of Fort Collins Utilities and / or other parties such as a company called Corix or other contractors hired by the City or FCU to remove the original meters and replace them with smart electric meters or digital analog meters or to remove the smart electric meters upon customer request and replace them with replacement meters. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 6 However, the public employees involved in making the decision to remove ALL of the city residents' original electric meters and replace them with smart electric meters includes many people. Those employees include, but are not limited to: the city manager(s) at all relevant times, the deputy city manager(s) at all relevant times, the city attorney(s) at all relevant times, the head(s) or leader(s) of Fort Collins Utilities at all relevant times including Mr. Dennis Sumner, the city accountant(s) and Chief Financial Officer(s) at all relevant times, and the leader(s) of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project at all relevant times, regardless of their official title(s) which claimant is not aware of. The relevant times are the days when the City was deliberating on and considering the Project, whether this was in open City Council meetings or workshops or any other forum or manner. The Members of the Fort Collins City Council including the Mayor, and the City Clerk, at all relevant times were involved, but not as they should have been. By law they should have been involved by deliberating and deciding on the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project through open government processes that protect the substantive due process rights of every person in the City as Colorado law and the City Charter require. Rather, the City Council members were well aware of this project, presumably were also well aware of the open government processes just mentioned, and despite all this these City Council members allowed the City and FCU to spend the money, remove the original meters and install the smart meters AS IF they had followed open government processes as required. As such they are culpable and responsible for the injury to claimant and to all other persons similarly situated; that is, other City residents who have asked the City to remove the smart electric meter from their home, agreed to pay the manual meter reading charge believing all along that such charge was properly approved and authorized and also that the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project was properly approved and authorized, who have been assessed or charged such charge and have paid it for at least one month. (2)(d) The nature of the injury is financial. The City of Fort Collins and / or Fort Collins Utilities have charged claimant monthly fees called a "manual meter reading charge" described by the City in ordinances as "for those customers who request the option of mechanical electric meter and / or a mechanical water meter instead of the standard advanced metering equipment" (Ordinance No. 33, 2012) and as "charged to service addresses where metering equipment without remote communications capability is used, requiring an on -site visit to collect use data for water and / or electric service." (Ordinance 17, 2014). Claimant has disagreed with this manual meter reading charge but has paid it each month, as part of the regular monthly electric bill, because the alternative was to NOT pay it and the City or Fort Collins Utilities would have disconnected the electric power, leaving claimant without electricity in her home. This is an ongoing injury; that is, the City and Fort Collins Utilities have continued, continue and likely will continue indefinitely to charge claimant the manual meter reading charge. Other parts of the injury and damage which the City and FCU have caused claimant include: Legal fees for the attorney Thomas V. Hoeflinger's letter to the City about the smart meter program. The amount is five hundred dollars ($500.00). Certified mail fees for several letters that claimant mailed to the City and / or FCU. The amount is the sum of the certified mail fees as documented by the attached receipts. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 7 The cost of obtaining from the police department the transcript and recording of the department's questioning / interrogation of claimant's husband, Craig Farver. The amount is forty six dollars ($46.00). Legal argument The reason that this charge constitutes an injury and damages to claimant is that although the City is required to follow open government processes when making policy the City failed to do so with the Project. The City of Fort Collins ("City"), like all Colorado cities, is required by the Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972, as amended, C.R.S. 24-6-101 et seq, to conduct its deliberations and policy making openly and transparently. The City Council is required by its Charter, Section 6, to "act by ordinance, resolution, or motion". Section 6 also requires that, "All legislative enactments and every act ... making an appropriation ... establishing any rule or regulation for the violation of which a penalty is imposed, or placing any burden upon or limiting the use of private property, shall be by ordinance, ...." Section 7 addresses "Section 7. Ordinances, publication and effective date." Section 7 requires that, "Ordinances shall be signed by the Mayor, attested by the City Clerk and published without further certification." As stated above the City Council never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion to approve and authorize the Project. The AMFC Project established a rule or regulation that each resident had to have the original analog meter removed from the resident's home and that the City or FCU would install a smart electric meter or, in some cases, a digital analog meter, whether the resident liked it or objected to it. There was a penalty. If claimant or other residents had attempted to block or physically delay the removal and replacement of the electric meter the Police Department could have and would have arrested the resident. In fact the City and / or FCU cut off a lock that claimant had installed to protect her original analog electric meter and prevent its removal and replacement. This was done at 8:30 in the morning and without claimant's consent or knowledge as to the day and time. Another possibility was that, if claimant had removed the digital analog meter that the City and / or FCU placed on claimant's home on March 6, 2014 the City and / or FCU would have cut off claimant's electricity. That is clearly a rule or regulation for the violation of which a penalty is imposed. Shutting of electricity to a home is a penalty. Despite these clear requirements the City Council never followed them. As noted earlier the City Council is the only person or body with the authority to approve the Project. The City Manager or his staff cannot do so. Yet they are the only ones who apparently "authorized" (although illegally) the Project. In attorney Thomas V. Hoeflinger's letter to the City dated November 27, 2013 Mr. Hoeflinger responded to the City's letter to Mrs. Shay, dated November 19, 2013, a copy of which the City also sent to claimant. That letter was addressed to, "Dear Utilities Customer" and the subject was "Notice of Termination of Utilities Service". A copy of that letter is attached to this notice and claim. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 8 The City's letter explicitly threatened Mrs. Shay, claimant, and other recipients that, "If you choose not to contact Utilities to arrange for installation of upgraded metering equipment, electric and / or water service will be terminated at your premise after December 2, 2013." Fort Collins is a VERY cold city in early December. Termination of electric service would have left Mrs. Shay, claimant, and other recipients of this threat very cold since a furnace, heat pump, or any other common residential heating system requires electricity. As Mr. Hoeflinger stated in his letter, "You provide no basis for these actions. As well, you fail to cite the authority under which you are taking these actions." Mr. Hoefliner's letter demanded certain information from the City in order to resolve the situation prior to seeking a judicial remedy. Among other things the letter requested: 3. Any/all statutory basis upon which the City of Fort Collins is acting. 4. The authority upon which the City of Fort Collins relies when ordering the termination of utilities service to our client. To the best of claimant's knowledge the City never responded to Mr. Hoeflinger's letter. In particular the City never provided, to Mrs. Shay or to any other resident, the answers to Mr. Hoeflinger's questions about the statutory basis upon which the City of Fort Collins was acting. More details on the legal argument follow later in this notice and claim. (2)(e) The amount of monetary damages that is being requested is the sum of the following: The manual meter reading charge subtotal: Eleven dollars and no cents ($11.00) per month for each month that the City has charged, and claimant has paid, the manual meter reading charge starting in April, 2014 and continuing through the present until the date that this claim is finally paid. The date of the first electric bill containing the manual meter reading charge was April, 2014. Considering today's date in late September, 2015 the subtotal for these charges is eighteen months and counting, or $198 and counting. Claimant's legal fees in objecting to the smart meter: As stated earlier in the fall of 2013 claimant paid attorney Thomas V. Hoeflinger five hundred dollars ($500.00) to write a letter to the City and / or to FCU objecting to the smart meter and stating she did not want one placed on her house. A copy of that letter and claimant's check is attached to this notice and claim. Claimant had already written to the City and / or FCU several times via certified mail. The City and FCU had ignored all of those letters; in other words had not acknowledged receiving them although they were sent via USPS certified mail and had not written back to claimant. This made claimant believe that the City and FCU were going to install the smart meter and remove claimant's analog meter despite her express wishes and over her written objection and without her consent. None of those letters would have been necessary, and this legal fee would not have been necessary, without the Project. Certified mail fees for several letters that claimant mailed to the City and / or FCU. The amount is the sum of the certified mail fees as documented by the attached receipts. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 9 April 12, 2013 $18.14 September 7, 2013 $6.20 September 19 2013 $6.20 Subtotal for certified mail fees $30.54 The cost of obtaining from the police department the transcript and recording of the department's questioning / interrogation of claimant's husband, Craig Farver. The amount is forty six dollars ($46.00). A copy of the receipt from the police department dated March 18, 2014 is attached to this notice and claim. Severability: if the City finds that the City and / or FCU caused any of the above injuries and damages but did not cause others, claimant requests that the City pay claimant for those injuries and damages that the City and / or FCU caused. More thorou h explanation of the information required by Section 2(b) This is for section 2(b). The Colorado Sunshine Act of 1972, as amended, C.R.S. 24-6-101 et seq, requires openness and transparency in a local government body or agency's deliberations and policy making. Following are some excerpts from this Act applicable to this notice and claim. TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 6. COLORADO SUNSHINE LAW, PART 4.OPEN MEETINGS LAW, C.R.S. 24-6-401(2035) 24-6-401. Declaration of policy "It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret." The intent of the Open Meetings Law is to afford public access to a broad range of meetings at which public business is considered. Benson v. McCormick, 195 Colo. 381, 578 P.2d 651 (1978); Van Alstyne v. Hous. Auth. of City of Pueblo, 985 P.2d 97 (Colo. App. 1999); Bd. of County Commis v. Costilla County Conservancy Dist., 88 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2004). The public meetings laws are interpreted broadly to further the legislative intent that citizens be given a greater opportunity to become fully informed on issues of public importance so that meaningful participation in the decision -making process may be achieved. Cole v. State, 673 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1983). C.R.S. 24-6-402 (2015) 24-6-402. Meetings - open to public — definitions Subsection 2(b) states: (b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times. Subsection 2( c) states: Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 10 (c) Any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. In addition to any other means of full and timely notice, a local public body shall be deemed to have given full and timely notice if the notice of the meeting is posted in a designated public place within the boundaries of the local public body no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting. The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible. Section 2(d) requires: (d) (I) Minutes of any meeting of a state public body shall be taken and promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session authorized under subsection (3) of this section is held shall reflect the topic of the discussion at the executive session. (II) Minutes of any meeting of a local public body at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or could occur shall be taken and promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session authorized under subsection (4) of this section is held shall reflect the topic of the discussion at the executive session. (III) If elected officials use electronic mail to discuss pending legislation or other public business among themselves, the electronic mail shall be subject to the requirements of this section. Electronic mail communication among elected officials that does not relate to pending legislation or other public business shall not be considered a "meeting" within the meaning of this section. (IV) Neither a state nor a local public body may adopt any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, or regulation or take formal action by secret ballot unless otherwise authorized in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph (IV). (End of excerpt.) Section 8 states unambiguously: (8) No resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action of a state or local public body shall be valid unless taken or made at a meeting that meets the requirements of subsection (2) of this section. The City never approved a resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance or formal action that met the requirements of subsection (2) of this section. The plain language of this statute is very clear. Absent such a resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance or formal action of the City of Fort Collins City Council the Project and the actions undertaken as part of the project were and are unauthorized and illegal. These actions include the charging of the manual meter reading charge to claimant and other residents and businesses. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 11 The Charter of the City of Fort Collins requires openness, transparency and specific measures intended to keep the public aware of and give the public the opportunity to be involved in the deliberations and decisions of City business. Article II, Sections 6 and 7 of the Charter state: Section 6.Ordinances, resolutions, motions. The Council shall act by ordinance, resolution, or motion. The ayes and nays shall be recorded on the passage of all ordinances, resolutions, and motions. Every Councilmember present shall vote; if a member fails to vote when present, he or she shall be recorded as voting in the affirmative. All legislative enactments and every act creating, altering, or abolishing any agency or office, fixing compensation, making an appropriation, authorizing the borrowing of money, levying a tax, establishing any rule or regulation for the violation of which a penalty is imposed, or placing any burden upon or limiting the use of private property, shall be by ordinance, which shall not be so altered or amended on the final passage as to change the original purpose. All ordinances, except the annual appropriation ordinance and any ordinance making a general codification of ordinances, shall be confined to one (1) subject which shall be clearly expressed in the title. All ordinances shall be formally introduced at a regular or special Council meeting in written or printed form by any member of the Council and considered on first reading and action taken thereon. No ordinance, except an emergency ordinance, shall be finally passed on the first reading or at the meeting at which it is first introduced. An emergency ordinance may be formally introduced at a special Council meeting and action taken thereon, including final passage at such special meeting. Reading of an ordinance shall consist only of reading the title thereof, provided that copies of the full ordinance proposed shall have been available in the office of the City Clerk at least forty eight (48) hours prior to the time such ordinance is introduced for each member of the City Council, and for inspection and copying by the general public, and provided further that any member of the City Council may request that an ordinance be read in full at any reading of the same, in which case such ordinance shall be read in full at such reading. Final passage of all ordinances except emergency ordinances shall be at a regular Council meeting. Emergency ordinances shall require for passage the affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council and shall contain a specific statement of the nature of the emergency. No ordinance granting any franchise or special privilege which involves a benefit to any private person or entity shall ever be passed as an emergency ordinance. The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the Council shall be as follows: "Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Fort Collins." (Ord. No. 3, 1961, 2-23-61, approved, election 44-61; Ord. No. 94, 1972, 1-4-73, approved, election 2-20-73, Ord. No. 18, 1973, 2-15-73, approved, election 4-3-73; Ord. No. 202, 1986, § 1, Part X, 12-16-86, approved, election 3-3-87; Ord. No. 203, 1986, § 1, Part A, 12-16-86, approved, election 3-3-87) Section 7.Ordinances, publication and effective date. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 12 Every proposed ordinance, except an emergency ordinance, shall be published in full at least seven (7) days before its final passage on the city's official internet web site. In addition, each such ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city by number and title only, together with a statement that the full text is available for public inspection and acquisition in the office of the City Clerk and on the city's internet web site. Both publications shall contain a notice of the date when said proposed ordinance will be presented for final passage. The City Clerk shall, within seven (7) days after final passage of any such ordinance, publish such ordinance in the same method as is required for the first publication. All ordinances, except emergency ordinances, shall take effect on the tenth day following their passage. An emergency ordinance shall take effect upon passage and shall be published as provided above within seven (7) days thereof. The City never complied with the requirements of section 6 and 7 of the City Charter, either by acting by ordinance, resolution or motion, acting by ordinance in this case, introducing and considering the ordinance, passing the ordinance at a subsequent meeting, and making copies of the full ordinance proposed available to the general public at least forty eight (48) hours prior to the time at which the ordinance is introduced (all required by section 6) or publication of the ordinance (required by section 7). Proof of the claim made in the preceding paragraph and proof that the City Council never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion to approve the Project or the removal and replacement of the electric meters is found in the City's letter dated April 21, 2015 signed by Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager and addressed to claimant, in the attachment to this notice and claim titled "Phone conference with City of FC April 13 2015.docx", in the section of this document titled "These are the key events that led to this notice and claim" in paragraphs 1 through 6 on page 14-15 and paragraphs 13 through 23 on pages 17-19, and immediately following this sentence. Although it is sometimes hard to prove a negative (such as, "The City Council never did X.") in this case the facts prove it. Briefly, claimant made an open records act request earlier this year for the resolutions, ordinances or other formal records of decision approved or adopted by the City Council that authorized the removal and replacement of the electric meters from residents' homes and businesses and the charging of fees for those customers who chose to "opt out" of the AMFC program. After about six weeks of follow up correspondence with the City Clerk Wanda Nelson and her staff Christine Macrina, the City had provided information about water meters but had not provided the requested records. Claimant asked to have a phone conference with representatives of the City to discuss the records request and responsive records that the City had not provided. During that phone conference, held April 13, 2015, claimant and her friend Mark Graham explored these questions in depth with Deputy City Manager Jeff Mihelich and 5 other City employees. Mr. Mihelich and his staff made it absolutely clear that no such resolution or ordinance exists, stating so repeatedly in different words. Subsequently at claimant's request Mr. Mihelich wrote the April 21, 2015 letter to put in writing that fact and to describe the deliberative process the City had taken in approving the Project. The bottom line is that the City Council, as stated above, never acted by ordinance, resolution or motion to approve the Project or the removal and replacement of claimant's and other residents' and businesses' electric meters. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 13 Mr. Mihelich's letter quoted the first part of claimant's open records act request, which asked for the resolutions, ordinances or other records of decision authorizing the removal and replacement of the electric meters. Mr. Mihelich then wrote: "In the end, we both understood that the City of Fort Collins does not have the document you described in your request, and as discussed in our conference call." Mr. Mihelich's letter then said, "Nevertheless, the City has endeavored to provide you a description of the events below that should help to describe the approval process for the AMFC project." Mr. Mihelich's letter then described the steps in the approval process for the AMFC project. These are quoted in paragraphs 1 through 6 on page 14-15 of this notice and claim. Nowhere in Mr. Mihelich's description of that approval process for the AMFC project is any mention of a resolution, ordinance or motion approved by the Fort Collins City Council authorizing the Project or the removal or replacement of the electric meters. Any such resolution, ordinance or motion is conspicuously absent from Mr. Mihelich's letter. That is absolute proof, from the Deputy City Manager, that the City Council never so acted. Discovery of the nature of the act omission or event complained of C.R.S. Section 24-10-109(1) identifies the statute of limitations for the Governmental Immunity Act. Claimant has one hundred eighty-two days after the date of the discovery of the injury, to file a written notice as provided in this section. Claimant complies with this time limit because, as described next, the date of her discovery of the injury was April 13, 2015. Subsection (1) says: (1) Any person claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity or by an employee thereof while in the course of such employment, whether or not by a willful and wanton act or omission, shall file a written notice as provided in this section within one hundred eighty-two days after the date of the discovery of the injury, regardless of whether the person then knew all of the elements of a claim or of a cause of action for such injury. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a jurisdictional prerequisite to any action brought under the provisions of this article, and failure of compliance shall forever bar any such action. These are the key events that led to this notice and claim The first six paragraphs immediately following this sentence are directly quoted (with paragraph numbers added) from a letter from Mr. Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager, dated April 21, 2015 and addressed to claimant. A copy of that letter is attached with this notice and claim. 91) The pursuit of the AMFC project began in 2008, and was referenced in the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan as "SmartGrid, Advanced Metering Infrastructure, Pricing, Conservation" as one of the menu of project options to support Climate Action Plan goals. #2) In 2009, the viability of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project was explored by Utilities staff and, as a result, a Light and Power budget offer was developed for City Council consideration as part of the 2010 - 2011 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 14 #3) Concurrent with the BFO consideration process, the City submitted an application to the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG). #4) The City of Fort Collins was notified by DOE that the Fort Collins SGIG proposal was selected for SGIG award negotiations on October 21 ,2009, just prior to the completion of the BFO process. 45) Based on the notification from DOE, the AMFC budget offer was withdrawn to modify the budget request. #6) Therefore, at the May 18, 2010 meeting of the Fort Collins City Council, Council approved Resolution 2010-030 authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements for the SGIG award and Ordinance No. 43,2010 and Ordinance No. 001 authorizing the following; 1) $18,101,264 for SGIG funding support, 2) $16,000,000 Issuance and Sale of Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds, and 3) $258,499 for bond issuance costs. #7) Claimant wrote to the City and / or FCU one or more times in 2011, 2012, and 2013, often via certified mail through the U.S. Postal Service, informing the City and FCU of. a) claimant's objection to the installation of a smart electric meter or a digital analog meter on claimant's home and b) claimant's wish to keep the analog meter that was on the home and had been on the home since the home was built. The City never responded to claimant's certified letters. Copies of several of these letters are attached to this notice and claim. #8) Claimant's husband Craig Farver got a call from Dennis Sumner (FTC Utility Head) in late November of 2013. This is when the City was sending letters to utility customers about shutting off customers' electrical service if claimant and other residents who objected to a smart meter did not comply. Dennis Sumner kept claimant's husband on the phone for over 20 minutes. Dennis Sumner had just called claimant at home before calling claimant's husband. Claimant had told Dennis, "NO smart meter, and this would be the end of communication." Then Dennis Sumner called claimant's husband Craig. They taped these conversations of course! Claimant's husband explained what happened to Rich and he just wanted to protect claimant. As the City is aware and was aware at the time, claimant's son Rich was a student at San Diego State University and spent a lot of time in Nasatir Hall on campus. Very close to Nasatir Hall on a hill is an enormous tower that carries multiple wireless communications and is a central station for San Diego Gas and Electric. SDSU students, faculty and staff were never warned about the hazards of the wireless radiation that this tower produced. Claimant's son Rich Farver, a student at SDSU, developed brain cancer and died from it on October 11, 2008. Claimant believes that the wireless radiation from that tower directly caused Rich Farver's brain cancer. Several other SDSU faculty, students and staff who worked in Nasatir Hall also died from cancer around that time, supporting the idea that the tower was causing the cancer. #9) In the fall of 2013 claimant's friend Mrs. Ruth Ann Shay of Fort Collins hired an attorney, Thomas V. Hoeflinger of the law firm Jorgensen Brownell & Pepin PC, who wrote a letter to Mr. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 15 Steve Catanach at the City dated November 27, 2013 objecting to the removal of the analog electric meter and the installation of a smart electric meter on claimant's home. Claimant and Mrs. Shay were similarly situated and felt that the letter expressed both of their interests as well as the interests of other Fort Collins residents similarly situated. The attorney charged $1,500 of which Mrs. Shay paid $1,000 and claimant paid $500.00 for writing that letter and his earlier related work. A copy of that letter and claimant's check to Mr. Hoeflinger are attached to this notice and claim. #10) The City and / or FCU removed the original electric meter from claimant's home and installed in its place a digital analog electric meter on March 6, 2014 at 8:30 in the morning. Dennis Sumner, the head of FCU with another gal and claimant saw 1 police officer and the other police officer was on the side of the garage with the installers. They went immediately to Ruth Shay's house across town. Mrs. Shay got the business cards from the officers. When Mr. Sumner and the police officers showed up at claimant's door claimant looked at the woman police officer and said, "You, being on my property without a warrant is unlawful." Claimant knows that Mr. Sumner and the police officers stood in the streets of the other homes after that. #11) On November 18, 2013 FCU head Dennis Sumner called claimant's husband at work regarding terminating the electric service at claimant's home. This was moments after Sumner had called claimant at home and claimant had told Sumner that she did not want any more communication with him about the smart meter. Claimant's husband allegedly made a threat during that phone call. Mr. Sumner did not mention anything to Fort Collins police about this phone call or the alleged threat until February 27, 2014, more than three months later. On that day Mr. Sumner contacted Michael Trombley, a lieutenant in the police department to report the alleged threat. The City listed the City as the "victim" although there had not been any crime or even alleged crime. On March 3, 2014 Mr. Trombley called claimant's husband and asked to meet him at the main police building. Mr. Trombley did not read Mr. Farver his Miranda rights. Mr. Trombley did this while claimant was gone. He could have asked to meet with claimant and her husband together. During that meeting claimant's husband was trying to protect claimant from all of this and was crying on the tapes. The next day claimant got a copy of the interrogation recordings, which cost $46, and report. This entire incident with the police, which did not involve a crime, was directly caused by the AMFC project. Without the project none of this would have happened and claimant would not have had to spend $46 to get a copy of the interrogation recordings. A copy of the "Digital Evidence Request" 14-2927 dated March 14, 2014 describing two CDs (compact disks) and a total due of $46.00 is attached to this notice and claim. #12) In April, 2014 the City and / or FCU began to charge claimant a manual meter reading charge on the monthly electric bill in the amount of $11.00 (eleven dollars). They have continued to charge this charge each month since then. Because the City and / or FCU could turn off the electricity to claimant's home for failure to pay this charge claimant has paid it each month, although claimant has never agreed with it. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 16 #13) Claimant wrote to the City with an Open Records Act request on February 10, 2015 which said in part: "I request the following records as provided by Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72-200 through 206. "Any and all Resolutions, ordinances or other formal records of decision approved or adopted by the City Council: that authorize the removal of analog electric meters from customers' homes and businesses and the replacement of those meters with smart meters. that authorize the charging of fees for those customers who request an analog electric meter, or in other words who choose to "opt out" of the smart meter project." # 14) The City Clerk, Wanda Nelson, responded on that same day and wrote, "We have received your record request and will begin processing it right away. My colleague Christine Macrina will facilitate this request." #15) Claimant, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Christine Macrina, the colleague of Ms. Nelson, engaged in lengthy correspondence between February 24 and April 3, 2015. This correspondence was necessary because the City had failed to provide to claimant responsive records which claimant strongly believed must exist. Claimant wrote to the City more than once that the records the City had provided were not responsive to, or were not ALL the records responsive to, her request. #16) On March 18, 2015 Ms. Nelson wrote to claimant via email. That message said: "We have clearly missed the ball in terms of responding to your request to your satisfaction. I have spoken with Utilities Executive Director Kevin Gertig and we will be getting together as soon as possible to determine what additional records, if any, respond to your request. If you are aware of any specific documents you are seeking, please send me a list. "Thank you once again for your patience. Please do not hesitate to call if you would like to discuss this further." #17) On March 27, 2015 Ms. Macrina wrote to claimant via email. That message said in part: "It is not clear from your requests what record(s) you are seeking, or whether the record(s) you describe are under the control of this office." #18) Due to the apparent confusion by the City and the City's failure to provide certain resolutions, etc. that claimant believed had to exist, claimant asked to have a phone conference with representatives of the City. The purpose of that phone conference was to discuss claimant's record request, the City's response so far, the records provided so far, any other responsive records that might exist, and the City's deliberative and policy making process that led to the approval of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project. Claimant requested that a representative of the city with decision making authority as to providing certain records in response to a records request would be on that phone conference. Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 17 # 19) On April 3, 2015 Ms. Nelson wrote to claimant stating that Mr. Jeff Mihelich's (Deputy City Manager) was willing to participate in a phone conference and stating three dates and times when he would be available. #20) Claimant responded that day requesting April 13 for the phone conference. Ms. Nelson wrote to claimant that day saying in part, "Thanks for your quick reply! We will schedule the phone conference for Monday, April 13th at 2:00 p.m." #21) On Monday, April 13, 2015 claimant, claimant's friend Mark Graham of California, Mr. Mihelich and 5 other City employees participated in that phone conference. It was a very thorough conversation in which claimant and Mr. Graham explored with Mr. Mihelich and City staff the question of the authorization of the AMFC project, or lack thereof, and the policy making process that the City had actually used. No stone was left unturned. A separate document describing statements made by representatives of the City during this phone conference is attached to and incorporated by reference into this notice and claim as though that document were fully reproduced here. The title of that document is "Phone conference with City of FC April 13 2015.docx" or a similar title. During the phone conference claimant learned that according to the Deputy City Manager Jeff Mihelich, whose statement was not contradicted by any of the five other employees of the City who were present on the phone conference, the City Council never approved a resolution authorizing the removal of the original meters and / or the installation of smart electric meters. Claimant and Mr. Graham asked many questions intended to flush this information out. They asked questions from many different angles. They asked about the deliberative process by which the City made the decision. The separate document describing statements made by representatives of the City during this phone conference will contain greater detail but for the concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, suffice it to say that that deliberative process did not include a motion, resolution or ordinance approved by the City Council to approve the Project. There were ordinances authorizing the appropriation for the Project. During the phone conference the City made the following statements: "During the work sessions we received enough direction from the City Council to move forward." Claimant does not remember who said this but if it was Mr. Mihelich, who did most of the talking on behalf of the City, remember that he also said during the call that he was not involved in City government back in 2010. Mr. Mihelich said, "Item 1 does not exist; therefore we have satisfied the request." Mr. Mihelich said, "A lot of decisions are made at the administrative level, so Council doesn't need to approve the AMI program." "They are not required by law to approve the program." By "they" he was referring to the Fort Collins City Council. By "the program" he was referring to the AMI program. Somebody from the City, either Mr. Sumner or Mr. Mihelich, said, "The document you are asking for does not exist." Mr. Mihelich and other representatives of the City made other statements during the phone Notice and claim for damages from AMFC project, page 18 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 April 13, 2015 8th District Court of Colorado Larimer County Justice Center 201 LaPorte Ave Suite 100 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Application for an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of such record per C.R.S. 24-72-204(5). Your Honor, This is a follow up to my letter to you dated March 24, 2015, requesting the above captioned order. The reason for the update is that today several representatives of the City of Fort Collins and my friend Mark Graham and I had a conference call to discuss the responsive records. This letter contains a summary of that discussion. The end result was that the City claims that no such record exists responsive to item 1 of my February 10. 2015 public records act request. I do not believe that. There must be such a record for an $18 million dollar decision to replace the entire City's electric meters with "smart meters". AIso for the purpose of transparency and due process there had to have been a formal decision (a vote) by the City Council following the Colorado open meetings act. Because such a record must exist and yet the City maintains that it does not, I respectfully apply for an order directing the custodian of records for the City of Fort Collins ("City") to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of the records I requested in writing on February 10, 2015. A copy of my open records act request is attached to this letter. The City sent me information on smart water meters the 1 st response to my records request despite the fact that my records request said I was referring to "smart electric meters". Following is a summary of the conference call we had with the City this afternoon including key statements and the background and context. My friend Mark Graham from Elk Grove, California has been helping me with my public records request. After a long string of correspondence with the City Clerk's office in which the City failed to provide records responsive to item I of my public records request Mark and I requested a conference call with the City of Fort Collins to resolve my public records request in a conversation with somebody from the City who has the authority to make a decision for the city as to what records to send me. Today we (Mark and I) had a conference call with the City of Fort Collins representatives who were: Christine Macrina, the Boards and Commission Coordinator in the City Clerk's office Wanda Nelson, the city clerk " Jeff Mihelich, the Deputy City Manager Dennis Sumner Lisa (I did not get her last name) and one person from the City Attorney's office We explored the question of the ordinance(s) that I had requested copies of in my public records act request dated February 10, 2015. We discussed the history of the City Council in approving this program, getting a Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) from the U.S. Department of Energy, placing a purchase order with Elster Solutions in Raleigh, North Carolina, and putting in place an option for those residents who do not want a smart meter on their home. The City had sent me records on all of the above except for the Council's decision approving the program. The City's position, articulated very clearly and several times by Mr. Jeff Mihelich, is that the is no such record responsive to item 1 of my public records request. My request was for: Any and all Resolutions, ordinances or other formal records of decision approved or adopted by the City Council: 1) that authorize the removal of analog electric meters from customers' homes and businesses and the replacement of those meters with smart meters. 2) that authorize the charging of fees for those customers who request an analog electric meter, or in other words who choose to "opt out" of the smart meter project. This is the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project advi tiie metcir-1 q-Cp fl.isIs`v (End of excerpt from my February 10, 2015 public records request.) As was discussed on the conference call today the City has sent 2 records responsive to item 2 of my request. Those are ordinance 33 from 2012 and ordinance 17 from 2014. Regarding item #1 the City has not provided any such records. Mr. Mihelich said clearly on the call today that there was never such a record approved by the City Council, In other words he said that such a record does not exist. His statements are not credible. Quotations from Mr. Mihelich on today's conference call were: "I understand the logic of it but that did not occur." He said this right after Mark said this is what he thinks must have happened. He then described the process whereby what begins as an idea for a new policy on electric meters turns into city policy. That process includes a written proposal (or proposed ordinance) for the city council, a public meeting with public notice, a public agenda, public comments and a discussion and a public vote by the Council. "What you are looking for, that specific ordinance, does not exist." (Referring to an ordinance authorizing Fort Collins Utilities to remove the old meters and install new meters.) Somebody from the City explained that the City Council meets in 2 ways. One is formal Council meetings where there are votes on f proposedother �r is work p proposed ordinances. Council gives guidance to the s Y which the staff usest create Those ordinances are approved in the formal council meetings. The City Council's process for approving budget items, although they did not explain it fully, uses something called a "BFO". We never heard what the acronym stands for but it is some kind of budget proposal. The City told us, "AMI was never approved as a BFO." (AMI is the Advanced Metering Infrastructure program, which includes the smart electric meters.) The O might stand for "offer". The City said that the budget offer was taken off the table. I believe that was in April, 2010. Originally the budget offer (or BFO) was prepared without the SGIG (Smart Grid Investment Grant) but it was taken off the table and not approved by the City Council. Subsequently the SGIG was awarded and staff prepared resolution 043 from 2010, which the Council approved on May 18,2010. I may not have all the details of this sequence exactly right but this is what I recall the City saying. The point is that we explored in the conference call the sequence of events that led to the City deciding to replace all of the Fort Collins Utilities customers' electric meters and nowhere in the discussion was there an ordinance or resolution approved by the City Council authorizing this program. Somebody from the City, probably Mr. Mihelich, said, "The first official action was on the grant based on that non -official guidance." That was referring to the Smart Grid investment Grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, approved on May 18, ,2010 in Ordinance 043. The non- official guidance was a reference to guidance that the Council (allegedly, since we do not have any record of it) provided to the staff during work sessions prior to that date. "During the work sessions we received enough direction from the City Council to move forward." I do not remember who said this but if it was Mr. Mihelich, who did most of the talking on behalf of the City, remember that he also said during the call that he was not involved in City government back in 2010. Therefore this was a guess, an inference, and not backed up by facts. Mr. Mihelich said, "Item 1 does not exist; therefore we have satisfied the request." Mr. Mihelich said, "A lot of decisions are made at the administrative level, so Council doesn't need to approve the AMI program." "They are not required bylaw to approve the program." By "they" he was referring to the Fort Collins City Council, By "the program" he was referring to the AMI program. Somebody from the City, either Mr. Sumner or Mr. Mihelich, said, "The document you are asking for does not exist." I pointed out that the City of Fort Collins has put all the residents in debt through this program, which costs $18 million, and did it without any public input. It is not credible that the City of Fort Collins either approved th�AMI cision wasprogram, delegated to the City Manageverbally or anothermember writing. It is not credible that of the staff. It is not credible that the City Council approved the AMI Program in any way OTHER than in writing. Mr. Mihelich or Mr. Sumner, probably the former, referred us to the AMI documents on the Fort Collins Utilities website. However nowhere on that site is a record responsive to item 1 of my public records request. Mark also said that the records currently available on the website of FCU could have been placed on that website at any time before or after the Council's approval of the program. They could be revised or amended versions of the records that were available on that website earlier. We have no way of knowing unless it says so on the record. Mark said that if there were such a record, one of the representatives of the City would have told us that a long time ago. There was no disagreement on that by the City. During the call Mark asked about records from the Council's work sessions, both the written summaries and videotapes. Wanda Nelson said she would look to see if those are available. Mark also asked about the application that the City submitted for the Smart Grid Investment Grant. He asked whether the City had applied for the Grant. The City said yes. Mark asked if I could have a copy of that application and any attachments. Ms. Nelson said yes and asked me to send an email with a new public records act request. That is not the subject of this letter to the Court but it is the context and background. Both Mark and I said we do not believe that the City of Fort Collins would make a decision to spend $18 million on smart electric meters, authorizing Fort Collins Utilities to remove the safe, reliable and accurate analog meters which were the industry standard for 120 years, and deploy or install a "smart" electric meter on every home and business in the City, without putting such a decision in writing. Not only would that show a total lack of transparency and deny Fort Collins residents the opportunity to have meaningful input into that decision and be aware of it, but that would also probably be illegal. I cannot cite the chapter and verse of law but I believe Colorado law requires the City Council to make decisions such as spending $18 million in writing. There is a record of the financing of the AMI program, which is ordinance 043 from 2010. However there is no record of the City Council's approval of the program itself. At least that is what the City claims. They have not shown me any. But such a record must exist. Jeff (or maybe Dennis) said that at any point during the City Council deliberation on resolution 043 from 2010 any member of the council could have asked the questions and begun a discussion on the AMI project, what it was, why the city was doing it, the costs and benefits, etc. and he said that was never done. He also said earlier in the meeting that he was not involved in Fort Collins City government at the time, in May of 2010. I reminded him of that statement right after he said the above and he did not deny it or clarify it. He said that the fact that no council member asked the questions to begin such a discussion proves that the council was sufficiently familiar with the AMI program and so on, in all its details, that they were ready to move forward on it without such a discussion. There are several flaws in that argument. First, Jeff Mihelich told us earlier in the phone call that he was not involved in Fort Collins City government at the time so he does not know what went on, what the council members knew or what had been said or approved in writing. He is purely guessing, that is, making what he thought was a logical inference about the council's knowledge and informal, unwritten approval of the project based on ordinance 043 and based on the lack of any resolution approved by the city council authorizing Fort Collins Utilities to remove the old electric meters (analog meters) and install new ones (smart electric meters). Second, as Mark said during that part of the call it is more likely that the reason that no city council member asked the questions to begin a discussion on the merits of the AMI program is that the City Council had already approved a resolution authorizing it. This is a guess, an inference, but unlike Mr. Mihelich's guess 1 inference this one is logical. Third, we do not actually know whether a member of the Council asked the questions to begin a discussion on the merits of the AMI program during that meeting. It may have happened. The city has not sent any records showing that there was such a discussion, or indeed any discussion, at that meeting. Mr. Mihelich pointed to the 5th "Whereas" in ordinance 043 from 2010, which reads as follows: "Whereas, the Grant provides the City with an opportunity to install an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system and accelerate the implementation of the City's long range information technology (IT) needs, and to begin the modernization of its electrical distribution system," A copy of Ordinance 043 from 2010 is attached to this letter. Mr. Mihelich said that that "Whereas" is the City's approval of the A -MI project. That is incorrect for several reasons. #1 As Mark said that would be a stealthy way for the City to approve the AMI project because there are virtually no details. Mr. Mihelich responded that the City of Fort Collins does not operate by stealth and he took exception to Mark's comment. Mark responded that the ordinance by which the Council actually approved this program would contain the details, and that there is a difference between the financing of the program and the program itself. Mark also said that probably the reason there are no details of the AMI program in ordinance 043 is that the details were in a different resolution approved earlier by the City Council. The City had no response to that except to say that such a resolution does not exist. #2 There are no details. Who (what customers of Fort Collins Utilities) were supposed to get a smart meter? What if they didn't want one? What kind of notice would FCU give to its customers? When would the program begin and end? What was the schedule? In particular on details as Mark mentioned, section 1252 of the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 required utilities to consider and make a determination on a "Time -Based Metering and Communication Standard". Mark asked whether anybody from the City was familiar with that standard and one of the men, Dennis or Jeff, said that he was familiar with it. As Mark said that Standard said that each customer requesting a time -based rate would be given a time -based meter, or in other words a smart meter. A smart meter is a time -based meter. This was to enable the customer to use the time -based rate. If the City Council approved the Time -Based Metering and Communication Standard proposed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 then Fort Collins Utilities was not authorized to remove all customers' analog electric meters and replace them with smart electric meters. Only customers "requesting a time -based rate" were to be given a smart meter. This is known as "opt in". If a customer opts in to the program he or she receives a smart meter. Otherwise there is to be no change; in other words they would not receive a smart meter. Fort Collins Utilities may or may not have had authorization from the City Council to remove all customers' analog meters and install smart electric meters. At this point we do not know. The only way to know is to look at the ordinance or resolution by which the City Council authorized the program. But Jeff Mihelich said there is no such record and therefore the City cannot send it to me in response to my public records act request. There must be such a record. Frankly I do not believe this. It is not credible that the City Council never approved the AMI program in writing. This is not the way the City of Fort Collins makes decisions, especially large decisions. Nor any City in the State of Colorado, I would say. Some decisions are made without specific Council approval but not huge ones like this decision. Those would be decisions that the City Manager could make such as personnel decisions, hiring and firing, or the hundreds of small decisions that the city's public works department makes on a daily basis like whether to replace the street sign or the traffic light at 4th and Main Streets. At the very least an order to show cause will compel the City to put its statements about the lack of any City Council written approval for this $18 million AMI project in writing. As of today there are only eight people who know that this is the City's position: the 8 of us who were on the conference call today. This is a significant public policy program, apparently made with no transparency or public input or due process. The very ordinance authorizing the program, the City claims, does not exist. There could not be a more conclusive statement as to the lack of transparency of the origins of this program. For all I know, and for all anybody in Fort Collins knows, the AMI program was NEVER approved by the City Council! In fact when Mark asked today whether it would be accurate to say that the AMI program was never approved by the City Council, Mr. Mihelich declined to say. He said that he did not want to make such a statement. But that is the plain language meaning of his statement that such a record (item 1 of my request) does not exist. An order from this court directing the custodian to show cause why the City should not make a copy of that ordinance available to me will serve a vital public policy interest of sunshine or in other words transparency on the $18 million AMI program. If the City's response is to tell this Court the same thing they told us today on the conference call, so be it. That is their right. If that is NOT true then they will probably not say it to the Court. If that is true then it needs to be brought out by a Court order for all residents of Fort Collins to see. For these reasons I ask the Court for an order directing the custodian (City Clerk of Fort Collins) of such record (specifically item 1 in my public records request dated February 10, 2015) to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of such record per C.R.S. 24-72- 204(5). Please reply so that I know you received this letter. Feel free to write to me if you have any questions. Feel free to call me at 970-689-3798. Thank you. Sincerely, Virginia Farver Enclosures: Public records act request dated February 10, 2015 Ordinance 043, 2010 from the City Council of Fort Collins 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 March 18, 2015 City Clerk's Office Christine Macrina Boards and Commission Coordinator City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 Notice regarding Colorado Open Records Act request of February 10, 2015 To the City Clerk, This is to notify you that at least 3 business days after the date of this letter I intend to apply to the 8th District Court of Colorado for an order per C.R.S. 24-72-204(5) directing you, as the custodian of such record, to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of the public records I requested from you in writing on February 10, 2015. You acknowledged receipt of my open records act request on the day I made it. You have sent me information 3 times but each time it was not the information I requested. My request is clear and unambiguous. To date you have failed to send the requested records and failed to send me a written statement of the grounds for the denial, which statement shall cite the law or regulation under which access is denied and shall be furnished forthwith to the applicant. 24-72-204 (4) There is no doubt that the records I requested are public records as defined in the law. There is no doubt that the City has these records in its possession. Your denial of access to the records has been and is improper. As you may be aware, the Colorado Open Records Act says that when the court orders the custodian of records to permit inspection of the records it shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing applicant in an amount to be determined by the court. It would be far faster, smarter and easier for you to simply allow me to inspect and send the copies of the requested records. Please advise as to your plans as soon as possible. Thank you. Sincerely, Virginia Farver From: cmacrina@fcgov.com To: vrfarv@hotmaii.com CC: cvidergar@fcgov.com; wnelson@fcgov.com Subject: FW. Fort Collins Smart Meters Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22.36:05 +0000 Ms. Farver, I wanted to let you know that staff is working on your request. I expect to be able to provide a response that answers the authorization question with documents by Friday. Thank you. Christine Macrina Boards and Commission Coordinator City Clerk's Office cmacrina@fcgov.com Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 4.16-2525 From Subject: RE: Open Records Request Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:14:10 +0000 Hi Virginia: We have received your record request and will begin processing it right away. My colleague Christine Macrina will facilitate this request. Thank you, Wanda Wanda Nelson, City Clerk City of Fort Collins r The UPS S'+Mre #156; 1 UI31 A l_ HARMONY Hilt l clrt l;t,l l ins, ":li oot —:a (9--lo) 273 B144 031114/ 15 11.34 AN Wu die tht unt: Stull tot ill ytiui b1 l i pll l l lu , pub t i l drill i irt-I L! We tit tee ni l the beI Vic L b yt;II fir.--zti to ke(,f� yuuf flti5llleSS 9)IIIJ. 001 llllHy"1:j5 1ti1) fl.t r iili f trsi ("I'lis fiat NR CertIfled ScIL1l0[u I� $ lit a€' $ ;s l;flarlue s 1 iis [tow, [1e-,lui1dte1l NN ot1= N(.1I t•l i(,ifl1,7 fOr Rell.1111t, Reftiflll5 ur fA-AIcjIlUr..-. liec;ei;lf If+ lip'';3(1f(til;�i:i!11�i3eirikfhll lsl;' iir.-I!r;, t:3Hi , Cdbb i e fliaiik ytiti fuf ;f lui l Illy u11i P IeaSc 010,1 ildt;k dUd "I II vutitl. WIIi,te,veI , ai;i I1tlt.�Iilu"S dull ljt:r,,ufld tleedz;, r'it' tip llel C to otf vt; yritl. U`; Pc3.fctb f�titt:: Ale ;j'tiljiek;l lal ;tlrtti,lic;; Ne'lu f':wlc to help, ,lull[ OUI 1111.H tllldll j�lll�lnilt fii ;e:ct I gle.yt U1fe"b and 1N,1111i1:r, 6'1ww. . t I it;l Iit;,;; I. ui t . t;ulll/ , I JI hill (k/L L .�4 q-)!� C oY\1 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 March 24, 2015 8th District Court of Colorado Larimer County Justice Center 201 La Porte Ave Suite 100 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Application for an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of such record per C.R.S. 24-72-204(5). Your Honor, I respectfully apply for an order directing the custodian of records for the City of Fort Collins ("City") to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of the records I requested in writing on February 10, 2015. A copy of my open records act request is attached to this letter. Via email the City acknowledged receiving my open records act request on Tuesday. February 10, 2015. A copy of that email is attached to this letter. In my request I stated: If the custodian denies access to any public record, I request a written statement of the grounds for the denial, which statement shall cite the law or regulation under which access is denied and shall he furnished forthwith to the applicant. 24-72-204 (4) Despite that request the custodian has never disclosed the requested records or made them available for inspection or sent to me a written statement of the grounds for the denial. The City Clerk has responded to my open records request 3 times but each one was a halfhearted and flawed response. The City apparently failed to read my open records request prior to its first response. My request speaks for itself and it is clear and unambiguous. There is no reason the City could not have disclosed the requested records or made them available for inspection by now. The City sent me information on smart water meters the 1 st response to my records request despite the fact that my records request said I was referring to "smart electric meters". In its 2nd response, after I informed the City that they had mis-read my request, the City sent me the retired City Mayor's document with his signature in 2010 for the smart grid/metering. I followed up and informed the City that that document was not what I had requested. I stated on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 that they needed to read this very carefully and I wanted WHO authorized these meters to be removed. The City responded for the 3rd time sending me an email on March 2 and will be sending my required answers sometime the week of March 4, 2015. It is now more than two weeks later and the City has failed to disclose the requested records or make them available for inspection. For these reasons I respectfully request the order I described earlier. Thank you. Sincerely, Virginia Farver The UPS Store Jim IF! shat, IOWA f 11A1tHOM kl! out too hn, cu OW; "IT I I I em MY P1 Ila! it claw At Nit RHIMA14i WM Lori it IN 1- A 1 15 . 20 Cho w Lawl JIMI& yuu '01 41111159 YUUI WHY anwd Shoo. Mae "am hol Ad & " a t Low LAMInn I , , Hu vn toe yo"I iF JAH, pivany ulaplelr Sol WHO HW NOWY cat : Wdo 11napollow va";WYK., LU C 10 1 JOIC,, Q1 ho tV3tl.1 jo ttl 11W caolowl mqQ1 Im sluvuy 10 WD ARM 11AMI - 21 Us p.qaj Hates Ard Stbin C It, SIVAIJIT' NW Nu jetwum WoRb, In-Awink" ! NK The UPS Stor6 Or 'Tile UPS Store 1001A E HARMONY RD Fort Collins, CO 805" 970-223-6144 icket: 5200 [late: 9/7/13 :ore: 1565 Register: 1 ishie1 : 015659801)1032 We unde [biand yOLI'1e hLISY, [slit you're not a'joi,c:. Fur all ycmr -,mal 1'au5111ess needs �jot You ujlelt,'d tem 9ty price Ammit �1rit Class Flat ;235 '1 3.2o IR - N01' RE FURNABI f I I EN 'ert if i ed Subt Tax I tit al 9,40 m I Ige 7008 1830 0000 0452 9836 PlkIdbe 0)111t: [MCK iLldlll :AAJII LLbN" 60M Enter for' a Chdnce to W i rl $1 , 000 'I tie Vje Va YBLII' tet-dbduk t-riter PledSE GODIPietH t11E, t-'06k)IflrI 1. Satisfacti011 survey d+ : www,theLIPS$t0I'E! C0111/t.11,11 VeY For official Wlet;, le;llla IIJICI C0100 go to tqww,ZheLIPSsLuie.L'LjiII and c I ick on the c! - istoille" dxPc.l itf"Lv survey link SOLD IIEM COU11f = 2 us Postal Rates Are SUbject t.0 GLJ101(31'9a NR - No ratums, iafundc6. Gf eXCIldIlUet, fOr items designated kR. AP UPS Store - #1565 1001-A E. Harmony Rd Fort Collins, 00 80525 z 9'10) 223-6144 W 12f13 11:08 AM Ne are the one stop for all your shioping, P-octal and business reeds. We offer a'1 the services you need to keel: , . � business going. 500416 (022) TO $ 18.14 Certified Mail QTY 2 Reg Unit Price $ 9.07 SubTotal $ 18.14 Total $ 18.14 Cash $ 20.00 Charge $ 1.86- Re 71308 1830 0001 31191 9716 7006 1830 01101 31191 9723 vIsi 'our w _ wKw,tiieupsstorelocal.com/1565i:ot`� Cc�1rts M�atv:ef' lour business and personal needs, we are here to serve you. US Psstal Rates Are Sub;ect to Surcharge ENTER FOR A CHANCE TO WIN $1000 isle value your feedback �o er-ter please complete the customer satisfaction survey located at: www.theupsstore.com/survey For official rules and Terms and Cord ticns go to www,theupsstore,ccm and click on the Customer Experience Survey 1 i nk January 12, 2016 Ms. Virginia Farver 1214 Belleview Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Notice of Claim Dear Ms. Farver: City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collin.. CO 80522 970,221.6520 970,221.6327 - fax fcgov.com This letter is in response to your September 23, 2015 notice of claim ("Notice") that the City of Fort Collins ("City") received on September 29, 2015. Your Notice is nineteen pages long and numerous documents are attached to it. You state in the Notice that you are presenting it to the City in accordance with the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. You claim in the Notice that you and other customers of the City's Electric Utility ("Electric Utility") have suffered monetary damages you allege were caused by the City's implementation of its "Advance Metering Fort Collins" project ("AMFC Project"). More specifically, you claim that these damages have occurred because you believe that the AMFC Project was implemented without the City Council approval required by "Colorado law and the City Charter." You ask for approximately $800 in monetary damages for yourself and an unstated amount for other Electric Utility customers. As you know, under the AMFC Project the Electric Utility has replaced most of its electromechanical electric meters with a communicating digital electric meter (often referred to as a "smart meter") that can be read remotely rather than requiring that it be read at its location by a meter reader, as was the case for electromechanical meters. However, for those customers who have objected to the smart meter, as you have, the Electric Utility has instead installed a type of non -communicating digital meter that must still be read by a meter reader. As you state in your Notice, the City Council has imposed an $11 per month charge on those customers whose meters must still be read by a meter reader. The monetary damages you claim include reimbursement for what you have personally paid for this charge and, it appears, reimbursement for the Electric Utility's other customers who have paid this charge. You argue this reimbursement is required because the AMFC Project was not properly approved by City Council and, therefore, Council's imposition of this charge was not legal. Gm1dUa wet kzLl I Tcagrstn ToddA.lil Rebecc4m.14pin Matthew A C VAM Robeat G.Hwock BrunI.Inwe Thames V. ii dkgr Ruth Ann Shay 2937 Sombrero Lane Fork Collins, CO 80525 Payments received after 1113012013 are not included on this statement. Fees 900 SM Ma Ond Stye IM iaQ,pmt co owl Tel:303.6780560 Fk-303.678.1164 916 TV&Stred Dreft C 0 806K TeL•fl70.300075 M:970.3518421 Statement Date: November 30, 2013 Account No. 4030.00 Page: 1 Rate Hours /19/2013 TVH telephone consultation with client re: smart -meter issues and concerns it may cause cancer 175.00 0.30 5 /2012013 TVH Office consultation with client re: Smart meter issues and desire of client to find alternatives to installation of smart meter 175.00 0.50 8 TVH Research literature, audio CD re: smart meters and electronic pulses that may cause cancer 175.00 0.90 15 TVH Case Review with Partners and status update 175.00 0.10 1 /22/2013 TVH Telephone call to Fort Collins re: issue with smart meters and request for information 175.00 0.20 3 /24/2013 TVH Review of emaiis from client re: smart meters 175.00 0.30 6 125/2013 TVH Draft Letter to City of Fort Collins re: termination of power to client residence 175.00 2.10 3E 126/2013 TVH Telephone call with Wayne re: smart meters and whether he wants to be a part of proceedings 175.00 0.20 TVH Telephone call with Virginia Farber re: information on smart meters and problems causes by them 175.00 0.30 E 127/2013 TVH View movie and materials provided by client and Virginia Farber 175.00 1.60 2E For Current Services Rendered 6.50 1,1 1 Expense t25/2013 Longmont Telephone Charges Ruth Ann Shay /30/2013 Statement Date: 11/30/2013 Statement No. 82246 Account No. 4030.00 Total Expenses 6C Total Current Work 1,143.It Payments Payment-1,000.0 Subtotal $143.E Client trust account Opening Balance $0.00 11/20/2013 Deposit to client trust account Check # 39169 500.00 11/30/2013 Deposit to client trust account - Check #8135 500.00 11/3012013 Payment from client trust account Check # 23640 PAYEE: Jorgensen, Brownell & Pepin, P.C. -1,000.00 Closing Balance $0 00 Amount to replenish retainer $500 00 Please Pay $643.51 A finance charge of 16% per annum will be assessed on all accounts past due 30 days. Please make checks payable to Jorgensen, Brownell & Pepin PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT BY THE 15TH Of THE MONTH Page 2 Search Mail and Peopie A Folders inbox Junk Email Drafts Sent Items Deleted Items Archive Gingers stuff P O New "'"'1 Reply P Y flf Delete 0 Archive Junk w Sweep Move to , - tludP, FW: Fort Collins Smart Meters 128 -; Qpp) Christine Macrina d1l�llll�il�Ir?ti� You; Cyrit Vdergar (cvidergar@fcgov.com); Wanda Nelson {wnelson@fcgov.comj Public Records Request.... Ms. Farver, I wanted to let you know that staff is working on your request I expect to be able to provide a response that al by Friday. Thank you. Christine Macrina Boards and Commission Coordinator City Clerk's Office emacrina@fcgov.com Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 416-2525 From: Virginia Farver Zmaifto:vrfarv@hatmail.com1 Serrt: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:05 PM To: Wanda Nelson; Christine Maoina; City Leaders Subject: RE: Fort Collins Smart Meters Wanda and Christine, I think you need to read this once more. I need to know exactly WHO authorized the removal of ana and the replacement of those meters with smart meters. I need to know WHO authorized the charging of fees for those customers who request an analog elee out" of the smart meter project. I already have the City Cade Documents and Ordinances. I need to know exactly WHO authorized t Sincerely, Virginia Fram: 6%;iL lN01711iL'-:'It C:nn To: t j llx . t1 h''!riimli ?11I1 CC: iilhli'iifl;l cr itiw,Ul �r1t73� i�(. t7;;wYfl i.L: E?UI.t.i�lli Subject: RE: Fort Collins Smart Meters Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:38:24 +0000 Heila Virginia My apologies if the doturnents you received from Christine were not responsive to your request. Can you please tell m for your patience. Wanda Search Mail and People n Folders Inbox Junk Finail Drafts Sent Items Deleted Items Archive Gingers stuff + New "-� Reply Delete 'Il;;iil Archive Junk � Sweep Move to - �M D� FW: Fort Collins Smart Meters 128 t U Christine Macrina You; Cyril Vidergar (cvidergar@fcgov.com); Wanda Nelson fwnelson@fcgov.com) Public Records Request.., Ms. Farver, I wanted to let you know that staff is working on your request. I expect to be able to provide a response that ai by Friday. Thank you. Christine Macrina Boards and Commission Coordinator City Clerk's Offioe cmacrina@fcgov.00m Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970)416-2525 From: Virginia Farver [mailto:vrfarv@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:05 PM To: Wanda Nelson; Christine Macrina; Oty Leaders Subject: RE; Fort Collins Smart Meters Wanda and Christine, I think you need to read this once more. I need to know exactly WHO authorized the removal of ana and the replacement of those meters with smart meters. 1 need to know WHO authorized the charging of fees fir those customers who request an analog eice out" of the smart meter project. I already have the City Code Documents and Ordinances. I need to know exactly WHO authorized f Sincerely, Virginia From: tu_it_ lson o FcLo%.coni To: rl:in erllolnlail.ceml CC: cm-,w'riIlA 21' IN.I]�Cl'1 i4<?u1_Ct%C'n Subject: II Fort Collins Smart Meters Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:38:24 +0000 Hello Virginia My apologies if the documents you received from Christine were not responsive to your request. Can you please tell in for your patience. Wanda hale Online - Check Details Page I o 'HASE PREMIER (,,.5868) Check Juviber: 8135 Post Amount of Date: 12/0612013 Check., $500.00 -I ,,'VJF1Q1N1A L. FARVER 8135 -d. J Ic 200 10 170: Need help printing or saving this check? Y'A FF"VA� 'KV4R?3 T DWP 144 --P13 I 17/006� i% J; t Oki. ILY7- J I C 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co.