City Council Regular Meeting — December 2, 2025

Thank you so much. Oh, it's our pleasure. Thank you so much. Mike Kruger, commissioner of Chassa, along with Assistant Commissioner John Sullivan, who oversees football for us.

We are excited to be back in Fort Collins for our third straight year hosting the state championship football contest for our largest classifications. Really value the partnership with Canvas Credit Union and want to thank them for their support. Also really want to thank the city of Fort Collins. As a northern Colorado resident who works in the Denver area, I'm always very proud to be staying close to home and attending events than making that drive every day. So with that, we also really would like to express our gratitude to the staff

and the team at Colorado State University who have been phenomenal partners in helping us promote educationally-based athletics and activities. For many of the kids that will attend the events and the families that will attend the events this weekend, it'll be the first time that those students, those athletes, those families have stepped on a college campus.

And we really value that. We think that's a wonderful thing to expose them to secondary education, especially at such a

prolific and high caliber institution as Colorado State. So again on behalf of CHASA, our entire team and our

373 member high schools, thank you so much. Thank you. I'm gonna do one local plug and say good job Wellington Two A's state champs. Go Wellington. Thank you for coming. All right. Anybody who's here for declaring the day of December 10th as Human Rights Day, please come on up.

You can, but you don't have to. You're more than welcome. Everybody's welcome.

And if you have a bear hat on.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. That was awesome.

You were? I was. Oh, you were. Oh, I was going to say. Boy, I didn't even know that.

That's awesome. Okay. Whereas. Ready? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

and whereas it was the first time a document declaring human rights and fundamental freedoms was adopted by an international organization and it continues to have universal value in defending and advancing people's rights. And whereas the United States of America's commitment to individual freedom and democracy provides the foundation of our society and the Bill of Rights serves to guide our people and our government to ensure basic human rights and liberties. and whereas as a community we are committed to upholding these principles and making fort collins a place where all community members may voice their opinions practice their faith and enjoy the blessings of freedom and whereas our community will find encouragement and rallying together to defend human rights by working together to advance the rights of all people we will help to build mutual trust and harmony for all individuals in our community now therefore or I, Jenny Arndt, the mayor of the city of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim December 10th, 2025, as Human Rights Day in the city of Fort Collins, and hereby encourage all community members, businesses, and institutions to recognize Human Rights Day 2025 by observing our nation's Bill of Rights and pledging to uphold the universal principles of liberty and justice that define our dreams and shape our hopes as we face the challenges of a new era. Congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Arndt, and thank you to the City Council for the proclamation and for reaffirming our community's commitment to the values at the heart of Human Rights Day. On behalf of the Human Relations Commission and alongside our partners who are fortunately represented here tonight as well, the Women and Gender Equity Advisory Board, the Senior Advisory Board, and the Disability Advisory Board, I am honored to accept this proclamation. Each year, Human Rights Day calls us back to the promise made in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a promise that every person everywhere is entitled to dignity, freedom, and justice. That document continues to remind us that these rights are not abstract ideals. They are lived commitments that communities must choose to uphold every day. Here in Fort Collins, we take that responsibility seriously. As the proclamation states, our nation's Bill of Rights and our local values of democracy and civic participation guide us toward a community where all people can speak their minds, practice their beliefs, feel safe, and belong. But these principles only come alive through action. They depend on our willingness to listen, engage, and act. Tonight, we affirm not only the ideals of human rights, but the collective effort necessary to uphold them. By working together across communities ages backgrounds and abilities we strengthen the trust and harmony that make Fort Collins a place We can all be proud to call home Thank you for this recognition and thank you to everyone in our city who continues to advance the universal principles of liberty Dignity and justice not just on December 10th, but throughout the year

I'll take your picture on somebody's camera.

Do you want to take it online and I can send it to...

Sure, yeah, that would be great.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you.

! thank you thank you thank you all for being here

! thank you thank you!

okay we're going to close it out we'll be back at six for the business portion of

Okay.

We're going to close it out and we'll be back at six for the business portion of tonight's meeting.

All right.

Good evening, Fort Collins.

The time is now 6.01 p.m., and I call the regular meeting of the Fort Collins City Council to order.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The clerk, please call the roll.

Arndt? Here. Francis? Here. Olsen? Here. Padjandi? Here. Canonico? Here. Pina Taro? Here.

Gutowski? She is excused and she is in our thoughts tonight. We appreciate all who have joined us tonight, either personally or virtually. I want to remind everyone that we're here for the same purpose, which is the future of our community. It's something we all care about. I know that you'll be respectful both during and after people speak and everyone will have a chance to be heard. Will the city manager please review tonight's agenda?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Just a few things I want to clarify. We have two amendments to the published agenda this evening. The first is that we have added a resolution approving the Midtown Business Improvement District 2026 operating plan and budget to the consent item as item number 26. So what that means is for people who had an earlier version of the agenda, everything is now shifting with discussion items starting as number 27. So we'll be sure to use the titles of the items to be clear for people. The second amendment to the published agenda is that we're withdrawing the three ordinances setting the salaries of council's direct reports Which were items 27 28 and 29 those are going to be considered on the December 16th agenda instead Tonight's consent calendar does include 26 items, which I'm recommending approval of we also have two discussion items this evening One is to consider several ordinances related to the adoption of the 2024 International Codes, the 2023 National Electric Code, and the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code. And then our second discussion item this evening is building performance standards. Also, just want to make note that we have three items to be considered under other business. Two of those are to call special meetings relating to the organization of the new council, which welcome. We see them here tonight. And the process of appointing a council member to the district 6 vacancy and then finally a consideration of executive session related to water topics

Great again something for everyone tonight There are no community reports tonight, so will the staff please play the public participation

There are three ways to participate in city council meetings in person in council chambers online via zoom or by phone Anyone who wants to speak during general comment or for any particular agenda item should sign up in advance at fcgov.com slash council comments.

You can comment on any topic, including other agenda items, during the public comment period.

Or you can comment on specific items when they are brought for consideration later in the meeting.

However, you may only speak on an agenda item once, either during general public comment or during that item's specific discussion.

The mayor will call by name those who have signed up to speak, in the order they signed up.

Connect to the internet on your computer or mobile device and join the Zoom meeting.

the link and instructions are on the meeting agenda and at fcgov.com click the raise hand button and leave it raised until called on

dial the number shown on the meeting agenda and enter the meeting id

press star 9 to raise your hand please note that public comment is not permitted about any items that could be appealed to City Council, like certain kinds of development projects.

Information and resources about how to participate in the development review process are available on the City's website.

Finally, please remember that public comment is not a question and answer session, and all comments should be addressed to City Council, not to individuals.

All speakers and audience members should treat everyone with respect and dignity, maintain a welcoming environment, and avoid actions that could be distracting.

please enter and exit council chambers quietly if the meeting is still in progress

great thank you very much uh you've all signed up we have the sign up sheet here at this point we

have 26 people who signed up before 5 30 wishing to speak and i heard there's one person wants to speak on a discussion item and when we get to that you're welcome to speak on the item. And so to ensure that we are going to be able to hear everyone, I assume that most of you don't want to wait until after executive session to do your speaking so we'll just make it two and a half minutes so that we can assure everybody gets in on the hour and a half that we have allotted to

public comment at the beginning of the evening. For those in chambers to please when you see your name come up. If you can alternate the microphones, it really helps. If you can alternate the microphones, it really helps with the efficiency of the public comment. ! We don't have a lot of lag time in between speakers. ! The staff will use a timer to track. Did you get two and a half minutes? Okay.

! Showing a green light, please state your name and roughly where you're from. ! Then the yellow light will go off at two minutes. ! That means you have 30 seconds left. And at two and a half minutes, you'll see a red light and that's time to stop and let somebody else have their turn. If you, note if you speak about an item during general public comment, you won't be able to speak again during the discussion item. you won't be able to speak again during the discussion item, but that's not usually a problem. And I'll begin now calling on speakers. We have Kevin Cross is up first, and then Leslie Coleman, then Natalie Barnes.

Good evening, Mayor Arndt, council members. My name is Kevin Cross, and I'm speaking tonight as often

on behalf of the Fort Collins Sustainability Group, or FCSG.

The FCSG remains firmly in support of approval of a strong building performance standards or BPS ordinance. We have been dismayed, however, by all the focus that has been placed on implementation costs

and the lack of focus on either cost savings or financing mechanisms for making energy upgrades ever since staff began formally talking to council about BPS in April of 2024.

Two of the six pilot projects presented to council by staff in October had simple paybacks of one year or less, which translates to a return on investment of 100% or more. That's not too bad. I would make that investment. Compare that to what you get from the bank of 3% to 4%.

Even for projects with Lor returns on investment,

financing mechanisms approved by the state of Colorado are available to allow those projects to produce a positive

or at a minimum neutral cash flow in the first year. That means no money down. Those financing mechanisms are the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy or CPACE program

and Energy Performance Contracting. Staff should have explained how those programs can be used to make energy upgrades, but as far as we know, they have not. If you don't understand how those financing mechanisms work, please ask staff to explain them to you before you vote. We're never

going to achieve our climate pollution reduction goal solely through reliance on voluntary programs,

Telling building owners that they must make investments, which in many cases will result in significant financial benefits, or at the very least can be made to cash flow over time without a down payment, is not unduly burdensome.

Let's follow Denver, Boulder, and the state of Colorado itself and approve a BPS program that requires compliance by 2030 to help keep the air clean and help meet our climate pollution reduction goals by 2030. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Leslie?

Okay, just go ahead and start.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Leslie Coleman. I'm speaking here tonight on behalf of your Natural Resources Advisory Board. And as a board, we do support the proposed building performance standards, and we urge the Council to adopt them. These standards are a key strategy to meet the city's greenhouse gas reduction goals. As you know, buildings are the largest source of our local greenhouse gas emissions.

Voluntary rebates and incentive programs have been available for a long time, but they haven't been enough to improve energy performance to the level that we need.

The scale of the challenge now requires a regulatory solution. The board has been following the development of these standards for some time now. The standards reflect several years of careful study and deep stakeholder engagement. There has been continued refinement to balance competing priorities and achieve compromise. The standards were designed to minimize compliance burdens and ensure that building owners can meet them in a cost-effective way. The city will also provide hands-on technical support, financial assistance, and appropriate compliance flexibilities. The studies that are in the record show that these standards' benefits significantly outweigh their costs. These benefits also go beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The standards will help us achieve our community's other environmental, economic, and public health priorities. They will improve indoor and outdoor air quality, leading to public health benefits. They will produce significant customer savings on utility bills. They will promote enhanced community resilience and the ability to weather energy price spikes. They will strengthen our local economy by building skilled workforce capacity. And finally, they will support the growth of innovative small businesses. The Natural Resources Advisory Board is confident that the building performance standards will benefit Fort Collins residents for decades to come. They're a crucial part of our investment in the long-term health, economic prosperity, and resilience of our community. We recommend that Council adopt these standards without further delay, and we thank you for considering our recommendation.

Thank you very much. Natalie?

Thank you.

My name is Natalie Barnes, and I live a block and a half away from Riffenburg Elementary School. In light of the proposal to make the emergency exit from Epic into a two-way entrance that exit onto Stewart Street, I'm here to express serious concern about the safety for children who travel along that street every day. Recently, Nine News ran a story about the dangerous conditions at Stewart and LeMay next to Ridgeview Classical School. During that story, Ridgewood's headmaster said, we've had kids that have gotten clipped by cars, mostly on bicycles. That is a chilling sentence when things like that are already happening, and it feels like we are steps away from a truly serious tragedy. And the current plan to add more traffic to a place that is already struggling is just insane.

So my first question that I have is how can additional traffic from Epic onto Stewart not further impact a crossing that's already proven to be unsafe?

We don't understand what the city is evaluating that, and we want them to really look at the safety issues of Ridgeview students crossing La Main and Riffenburg students crossing Stewart and Welch.

Add to that the concern about cutting through traffic.

People are smart. It's not going to take them long to realize that the handy shortcut this will create that allows them to get to both Stewart Street and Drake, driving through our neighborhood. All they have to do is cruise through those nice, quiet neighborhood streets, the ones that are already populated with schoolchildren walking to school, going on scooters or bikes to school, and pedestrians and dog walkers on their way to the park, in a neighborhood designed to be populated by families who moved there because it was quiet and safe. These are serious, valid concerns. Couple this to the damage our existing quiet neighborhood vibe would have, and my neighbors and I would like to know, no, we deserve to know, what kind of analysis the city has done to mitigate the valid concerns.

These are essential questions, and until they are fully answered, all the risks and potential damage to our neighborhood remain unknown. I'd like to request that the city council pass a resolution requiring city management to complete proper due process diligence before acting. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Terry? Good evening. My name is Terry Evans, and I'm also here to speak about the epic egress that's being proposed. I'm here on behalf of the Stonehenge Homeowners Association, and we'd like to formally request that the City of Fort Collins and the Recreation Department provide a clear and detailed explanation of the specific operational and safety problems they are hoping to address by considering opening the Edora Park South Street egress onto Stewart Street. The HOA, through the CORA system, requests further disclosure on data collected, including traffic analysis, incident reports, and alternative solutions that have been evaluated to date. We respectfully ask for this data so the neighborhood may fully understand the city's concerns and participate constructively in identifying effective solutions which do not then introduce new risks and degrade our residential safety and livability. Stewart Street Corridor serves three residential neighborhoods, Stonehenge, Parkwood, and Parkwood East. Stewart Street serves Edora Park and all of the park facilities, Riffenburg School, Ridgeview Classical School, and has historically been protected from epic traffic under the development intent established in 1985. Before any change to longstanding access conditions is considered, it is essential to understand precisely what the problems are and what the Recreation Department believes needs solving, whether congestion, safety inside the epic lot, emergency response concerns, or other operational challenges. Once the problems are clearly defined, the Stonehenge Homeowners Association, which comprises 233 homes, is committed to helping the city explore a full range of non-neighborhood impacting solutions, such as event traffic management, signal timing adjustments, staffing, circulation redesign, and shuttle operations, so that legitimate concerns can be addressed without opening the Stewart Street, which would provide a cut-through for increased traffic. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Perfect timing. Next up.

Good evening, City leaders. My name is Ryan James. I live in Parkwood East in District 1, and I'm here to speak about the Epic Gate at Stewart Street. I've spoken with several neighbors as well as families of Riffenburg, and a common question has come up that focuses on process and transparency.

Reviewing the public records, it's clear that the city issued an over $19,000 work order for design services back in April, including grading plans, a site plan, and construction details for a permanent exit from Epic onto Stewart Street. And yet neighbors are being told that no decision has been made and to wait for a neighborhood engagement meeting. So one question I have is if no decision has been made, why did the design work begin months before any neighborhood engagement has occurred? A second point I'd like to make is in a flaw in the traffic study that's currently underway. It's set up to assess the usage of the now open gate, but no one except for a handful of people who live nearby know it's open. It takes time for citizens to change their driving habits and no one will do so within the time span of this study because the gate was opened so quietly. I'd like to point out that if the gate is open, the fastest route from Epic to several of our high schools to the south will be through our neighborhoods. Students will be leaving Epic and getting to high school at the same time elementary and middle schoolers are walking and biking to and from school. Let's also theorize for a second what will happen when daily commuters find out that there is a quick way to get from Riverside to Drake, or a way to bypass congested rush hour intersections by cutting through the epic parking lot into neighborhoods. Word will spread, patterns will change, and none of this will be reflected in the current traffic study. The study has a built-in bias. So tonight I'm asking the city to help clarify the process with two questions. At what point should neighborhoods be notified before public money is spent? And how can the results of the traffic study accurately reflect human conditional and traffic patterns that have yet to occur? Finally, I want to thank the city for creating a project webpage that says they are going to engage with neighbors. I am ready to be engaged. Thank you. Thank you. Next up.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, City Manager. My name is Tom Glossy. I live at 2007 Brookwood Drive, and I'm here to talk about the proposed expanded egress for EPIC. I'd like to begin with the most basic question I can ask about any public project. What problem is this proposal trying to solve? And where's the data that defines it? Our neighborhoods have reviewed every publicly available document the city has released on this topic, and across all of it, one thing is missing. There is no measurable documented statement of need. We have not found any congestion study, any review showing Epic cannot clear traffic safely, any incident logs documenting failures, Any modeling showing that opening a new exit onto Stewart solves a defined problem? In other words, what data shows that EPIC has an access or congestion issue today? But there's also a second factor, future demand. Infrastructure should reflect not only current use, but what the next several years are likely to look like. And right now, I have not seen any analysis that incorporates major new aquatic facilities being built or planned in our region. For example, Laramie, Cheyenne, and Greeley are either in the planning process or construction phase of new aquatic facilities of some kind. These projects add substantial expected capacity in the same northern corridor Epic serves, which will influence where families, swimmers, and teams choose to train and compete. So the natural question is, has Fort Collins modeled future epic demand in light of these regional developments? And if ! And if new facilities are emerging nearby, ! Shouldn't that be part of the analysis ! Before we alter traffic patterns ! ! These aren't criticisms. ! These aren't criticisms. These aren't criticisms. They're reasonable ! They're reasonable So tonight I'm simply asking, what problem is this project addressing? And what data demonstrates that the problem exists? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up.

Evening Council, Jarrell Clover. I own Solace Bath & Body. I've had my store here in Fort Collins since 2012 and my other store in Manitou Springs since 2008. I'm in a unique position to understand when it comes to on-street paid parking because of my history of paid parking. Just like here in Fort Collins and Manitou, I attended almost all the meetings and planning sessions. and from that I came to the conclusion that all the facts, not just the selective ones, to oppose it. But in the end my fears came true and it was implemented. I heard the same discussions and false arguments then as I do now. How the city has given away its best and most valuable spots and others. But because on-street paid park was implemented, my local business revenue decreased by about approximately 70% and stayed there from the local business. Local customers don't want to come. They don't want to pay for park.

The damage has been done to Manitou and I hate to see it happen here.

In addition, there's been a lot of prior community input and community meetings over the years. I've attended a lot of those from our former mayors sitting on some of them to a lot of them.

But for the most part, this isn't referenced in the current documents before the city.

Primarily because these come to the conclusion that on-street paid parking is bad for the economic vitality and culture of our community. One such example is from a downtown Fort Collins parking management plan advisory meeting in last August of 2023. In my email exchange with Walker Consultants following that meeting where they stated,

we are in agreement that Manitou should not be used as a reclable example for Fort Collins or any downtown. Our perspective is that Manitou has gone too far. We would not replicate it. And what they're doing is not the best practice nor conducive to a sustainable economic vitality. Why is this relevant? The study presented to City Council in August this year is significantly flawed. That was the one for the work session. Starting on page 13, referencing Manatee Springs, it cites that Manatee sales tax revenue went up 232 percent based on significant changes to both the parking system and a sales tax increase. This is misleading as is due to basically the implementation of sales tax generated from

marijuana shops.

basically match you now because it's such a problem it has to implement two hours free paid parking just for the month of December to get local business back they are begging for it my stores down there are begging for it

at the end there's no metrics the city's metrics has one and there's no contra metrics it's not a holistic

look and it's kind of like the theme I just heard previously is that there's no thorough analysis it needs to be a win-win

thanks for coming out Gary Jones

Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council, and Ms. DiMartino. I'm speaking tonight about financial issues related to the opening of the Stewart-Epic gate, which I firmly oppose. First understand this is not opposition to Epic, nor is it opposition to improving traffic flow when it's done safely. My concern tonight is how you're spending public money and what options have been examined. With that in mind, I'd like to remind you of these facts. One, a lot of money has been prematurely been committed. A work order has been issued to Wilson and Company for $19,600 for the installation of an exit only from Eptics parking lot to Stewart Street with access to the Veterans Memorial. This money has been committed before any construction costs have been shared with the public. Two, there is no public estimate for the full cost of the project. Zero. No total cost, no range, no breakdown available. So how are residents and other voters supposed to evaluate the project? Will it cost tens of thousands of dollars? Hundreds of thousands? Three, the original Well, 1985 statement for Epic was good. It states that vehicles access is restricted to Riverside from Prospect Road. So now we're spending money that was intended to keep daily traffic off Stewart. Number four, there has been no documented analysis of Lor cost alternatives to opening the traffic floodgate, nor evidence the city has tried temporary traffic control, such as off-duty police for big events or adjusted signal timing, epic event scheduling, or cost-compared operational fixes versus this new capital project. So what would it cost to manage event traffic with temporary measures first before committing to such an expensive construction project? This capital project might help some, but it may well just move the problem and add cost while turning Epoch's parking lot into a tour thoroughfare. This issue isn't whether EPICS observes good access. It's whether proper due diligence has been done to ensure the issues of public funds. So I ask the council, please, before moving forward, to direct the staff to provide, one, a full cost estimate of the EPICS tour project. Two, a written comparison with Lor cost options I've mentioned. Three, an explanation.

Thank you. You can submit the rest by email. I promise you we'll read those. Thank you very much. Next up is Cindy. Am I saying that correctly?

Okay. Dr. Joan.

Good evening, council members, mayor, and city officials. My name is Joan Ivaska and I'm the president of the Water's Edge Metropolitan District 2 board. I am speaking to you this evening on behalf of my husband and I, community members within Saunders and my fellow board members. We come to you this evening to make you aware of the ongoing failure of the developer, Mr.

Bill Swalling, and actual properties to fulfill their legal obligations to the community and the city as outlined in the City Council approved district service plan and the subsequent city approved public benefits agreement. Key obligated public improvements remain unmet, including a non-potable water system, parks, natural spaces, trails, and amenities for community gathering and aging in place. These issues will worsen as Saunders Village, that was recently approved in the Planning Commission and covered by the same obligations agreement, moves forward. the irrigation system for saunders was designed as a non-potable system however the developers

supplied it with potable water and continues to market it as non-potable today there are no plans to convert the system and attempts to resolve this have failed as a result the intended environmental benefits have not been achieved and the residents are bearing the burden of higher cost to irrigation the service plan also promised these parks and open spaces none of which have been delivered and remain unfunded and unbuilt and now are tied to the development of this future phase in Saunders Village as well that will also suffer from not having these benefits provided. These are significant failures to fulfill commitments that justified higher taxes and attracted new residents. While Mr. Swalling describes the public benefits as aspirational in nature, I am certain the city

does not view the taxes and infrastructure in the service plan as aspirational. Despite eight months of legal review, investor outreach, and multiple meetings with Mr. Swalling, no resolution has been

achieved. We want to thank the city for meeting with us and starting an investigation into our

concerns that were raised at the Planning Commission hearing 10 days ago. Despite the robust conversation that occurred there, Mr. Swalling's recent comments underscore the gap that continues between his sense of responsibility and the community's expectations as constituents within the district. It is clear Mr. Swalling is unwilling to meet his obligations for public benefits and improvements in Saunders and the future Saunders Village unless forced to do so. We respectfully request that the Council and the City of Fort Collins hold the developer accountable for full compliance.

Thank you for coming. Next up, Kenneth.

Honorable Mayor, Council Members, Staff, my name is Kenneth Orgaleoso, and I'm here to speak regarding the reenactment of Article 11, Chapter 12, as the benchmark for a building performance standard. Speaking to you, as a member of our 2030 Building Energy Advisory Group, I and our other members do favor transitioning from a less regulatory to performance path of building energy and carbon management. We pretty much feel that it's more apt to create partnership between our city, our builders, and building owners by creating flexibility and innovation from data-informed decisions that will actually create world energy outcomes.

Now, I've read the agenda's executive summary and our staff's recommendations, and I'm in agreement with the summary outcomes based upon your four workshops and meetings, with two exceptions.

The extension from five to ten years in order to save $12 million towards unspecified resources,

resources, extension, putting out the time that you have to comply, and exclusion of multifamily

dwellings from the covered building list. Addressing the costs that owners of these buildings can incur, energy improvement fundings are available. As discussed in some of your workshops, the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy CPACE program for building improvements and the energy performance contracting program for our public buildings from our Colorado Energy Department provides up to 100% of funding for building owners to finance their energy improvements and finances public energy efficiency and capital improvement projects using the future savings generated by those projects. And the 2050 tax proposal, 25% of which is allocated to climate programs and initiatives discussed in the June 18th workshop, passed with nearly 80% voter approval. So there's over 700 buildings in the Fort Collins that would be covered, producing over 20% of our CO2. And I would urge you to look at extending, not extending those outcomes.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Suzanne.

Not here. Okay. Andrew.

Hello.

So we have a couple of visuals up.

There you go.

My name is Andrew Elliott. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Manager. I am here. I live near the Epic facility, and I'm here to speak about the proposed Epic Stewart Street exit. I'd like to begin with what the city originally intended for Epic and the surrounding neighborhood. In the 1985 Council on Record for Ordinance 98, which is still the controlling law, the city wrote two very clear statements traffic for the natatorium and ice arena will be channeled to riverside and kept off of stewart and hearing the extensive neighborhood input the designers confined traffic circulation to riverside avenue as a result the right of way for east stewart street is no longer needed those weren't casual remarks they were the legislative findings that justified vacating Stewart Street and approving the project.

The same record adds, the parking lot has been designed so as not to encourage parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. In other words, EPIC was deliberately designed

to protect the neighborhood.

Circulation was kept on Riverside.

The Stewart right-of-way was removed. Parking was designed to

prevent overflow, it was intentional and respectful of the people who lived there.

Which raises the obvious question, and could you put the next visual please?

What has changed? Has Stewart Street become safer for children? Has the neighborhood become less worthy of protection? Or have we simply drifted away from the respect and caution that guided the city's original decision. There's also something

deeper here about the meaning of place. Many people don't realize that the Veterans Memorial in Adora Park was moved from downtown because the traffic there no longer where it was in downtown,

no longer matched the reverence that it deserved. It was placed there in Adora Park to be peaceful and quiet. Today, the memorial sits roughly 50 feet from the proposed Epic Stewart exit. it. Can you do the next visual, please? We solved that problem once by moving the memorial away from traffic. This drawing shows the contradiction of action. If we open the permanent steward exit, then the corridor will become a commuter shortcut, undoing what the initial intention was. Thank you very much. Next up is Howard.

Hi, everyone. Hi.

My name is Howard Wasserman, and I've owned Curiosity's gift shop in Old Town for nearly

30 years.

Old Town is incredibly special.

Curiosity's customers always comment on the magic of our unique downtown.

I haven't seen many other thriving downtown areas.

with so many locally owned shops and restaurants as Old Town Fort Collins.

So why damage the magic and welcoming...

We rely on dedicated local shoppers who choose us over Amazon or Walmart.

or Walmart. We cannot compete with the bargain prices and free shipping of those big box stores.

What brings our customers in is the charm of our Old Town shopping district.

Additionally, the cost of doing business in Old Town has continued to increase at a rapid pace.

Property taxes have increased dramatically. Utilities, cost of labor, and cost of goods

are all on the rise. We at Curiosities have had to contend with changing and uncertain tariff situations, and our cost of gifts we sell at the shop has significantly increased. I understand that most Old Town shop and restaurant owners are experiencing similar stressors. We are all feeling stretched for sure. I am concerned that adding a paid parking meter system in Old Town will cause a large drop in customer foot traffic and sales at a time when we need to get as many customers into our store, our small businesses as we can. I think the city can certainly come up with some alternative solutions to increasing revenue that does not include changing the entire parking structure of our Old Town area. And I am more than happy to work with the city to discuss any ideas. Thank you so much for listening to me. Thank you.

Holly?

Hello, I'm Holly McElwee, the owner of Kilwins in Old Town, Fort Collins. I'm here tonight representing my business and not as an affiliation of the DDA as a board member, the local legislative affairs committee as the chair, or a Fort Collins chamber board member. Pertaining to the issue of potential paid on-street parking in Old Town, I am opposed, and I would like the city to consider the public's input in such a radical change in our downtown corridor. On change.org, it's a conduit of communication, and currently there's a petition with 4,100 verified individuals. Nearly 99% of them are opposed to paid parking, locals who state they will not shop in Old Town, frustrated businesses, and a host of other concerns. At 99% opposition, I ask that you to please take a closer look at this option. I urge the City of Fort Collins to consider business stakeholders, community members. the letters that have been sent to council, and the potential ramifications of lost sales tax revenue from individuals shopping elsewhere. Now to boots on the ground. I'm curious what feedback parking services has obtained by going door-to-door to businesses, as outlined in their council engagement plan these past several months. Picture this. It's 7 p.m. It's a Thursday night, and you're craving ice cream. Would you pay $2 to $2.50 per hour to park and then purchase a $6 ice cream? Many customers have told me no. This is just a small example of what could be impending for other local shops as well as myself. And that lost revenue does reduce sales tax to the city, the employment opportunities that I can provide, vitality, and the welcoming feel of Old Town in general. It was stated to me that people would still shop in Fort Collins, though, but maybe less frequently if there was paid parking in Old Town. So not a true loss to the city, but as a business owner and somebody who every day works hard, I could not disagree with this sentiment more. In summary, we want to keep our dollars here, our occupied storefronts, people dining and shopping in Old Town, a parking model that makes sense for all, and not create additional barriers to running an established business in the area. Thank you very much for your time and consideration tonight. Thank you. Christy?

Hi, good evening. I'm really proud to say that my family has owned Alpine Arts, a retail store here in Old Town, Fort Collins, for 44 years. I am here to please implore you to not implement paid on-street parking in Old Town, Fort Collins. My great concern is how many customers at my counter all day long, all over social media already, on your own city website and on our petition that say if there is paid parking on the streets of Old Town, they will come downtown significantly less often. That's a period. That is way, that's a death nail to the success of our businesses. Less sales tax revenue for you. Not to mention just the word on the street being now you have to pay to park in Old Town. that also is just a negative perception that we will not be able to overcome. Next, all of the research I see shows no evidence that it will truly create greater turnover. In fact, if you ask the businesses in those communities, Jarrell, they'll state that the turnover is actually even worse because people who can't afford it will just pay to park there for hours or for an entire shift. Next, it seems to me to be incredibly discriminatory against small mom and pop businesses, as if you're penalizing people for wanting to come downtown and support us. But you can park for free at a chain or a big box store or anywhere else in town. Small businesses need this city's help. Please do not further hurt us by giving people even more of an excuse to shop online or go to a chain. Not only does it seem discriminatory against small mom and pop businesses and businesses in only one specific area of town, but it also seems discriminatory against those with a tighter, smaller budget and those who are not tech savvy. I cannot tell you how many people at my counter all day say they do not want to download an app, hit a QR code, figure out a meter system or a kiosk to support us downtown. And finally, your idea right now is also discriminatory against retailers and daytime businesses. Whatever you do should be 24-7 and affect everybody equally. We understand that there's budget issues.

There's parking issues downtown. The garages need maintenance. We know those things. We have ideas. Please engage us.

Please help us succeed as small locally owned businesses. Help the community come to us and support us. we would love to sit down as stakeholders and discuss ideas with you for the future of parking in Old Town Fort Collins. Thank you. Ed?

Mayor Arndt, Council Members, my name is Ed Behan, and I live at 3580 Stanford Road in Fort Collins. I'm speaking on behalf of the Larimer Alliance for Health, Safety, and Environment and a concerned citizen.

I urge you to pass an ordinance requiring strong building performance standards for large buildings of less than 50,000 square feet. The City of Fort Collins declared a climate emergency in 2019 and has committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2030. The proposal presented by staff already kicks the can down the road by setting the deadline for building performance standards at 2035. This council has already delayed effectively achieving the city's carbon emission and greenhouse gas coals by supporting the installation of gas turbines by PRPA, ostensibly for backup power. These are not unrelated. We must do better than this. The proposal also exempts apartment buildings on the basis of keeping the cost of rentals down. Alas, market-based rents will rise anyway, given the growth patterns we see in our area. Decreasing the cost of energy for tenants by making those buildings more efficient may actually help to offset those costs.

As well, for businesses and apartment buildings alike, there are state-sanctioned financing programs which can help bring these structures into alignment with improved building performance standards.

Commercial business and property advocates suggest these standards should be voluntary, with incentives as the way to go to raise compliance. I submit that relying on incentives alone is wishful thinking at best. As one of your own council members has put it, you get the good players trying to do it and the bad players ignoring it all.

It seems there's all kinds of reasons for stalling on the adoption of more effective energy efficiency standards, but in the end, they pale in comparison with the warming of the planet

and regional health impacts brought on by continued burning of fossil fuels.

All efforts to reduce that consumption must be urgently pursued.

Again, I call on you to adopt strong building performance standards and make them a requirement rather than a voluntary program. The health of our local communities, as well as our survival on planet Earth, call for no less. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Wayne.

Hello, my name is Wayne Weldon and I have a sports apparel store in Old Town Square, which, by the way, may be the most underused asset in Forrest Collins.

Since opening my store seven years ago, we have suffered through COVID, perpetual losing seasons by the Broncos, Rockies, and CSU football teams,

not to mention this year's tariff mess.

Well, I don't blame you for the COVID outbreak, the losing sports seasons, or the tariffs.

I do blame you for causing extreme financial problems thanks to last year's astronomical property tax increases. And now the city is trying to create more obstacles for local businesses by removing free parking. COVID forced many of my neighboring business to close And last year's massive property tax increases Forced several more businesses to close their doors My business relies almost exclusively on foot traffic Now you're going to charge our customers to come downtown We should be encouraging folks to visit downtown Not discouraging them free parking is part of the old town charm

and one thing for sure you can forget about seeing anybody from the Harmony area anymore I have spoke to a few public officials from other parts of the country

and they have shared a common theme whatever your projected parking income is for paid parking it always ends up being Lor than expected and it is usually folLod by a sales tax revenue decrease due to lost business income.

As a side note, I don't believe people circling the block is a real issue.

It seems that the local government is working against small businesses, evidenced by my last year's extreme tax increases and this year's proposal to get rid of free parking. This proposal equates to a tax on business owners, visitors, and employees that work downtown. Government should be for small business, not against it. Thank you very much. George?

Good evening. I'm George Grossman, Chief Leafster at Happy Lucky's Tea House, and I live in District

1. Thank you for the opportunity tonight to speak with you on my opposition to paid on-street

parking. I echo the comments made this evening, as well as the voices of 4,103 people who have side the paid no paid on street parking petition only one and nearly 100 of whom have left comments in opposition i also echo the more than 120 comments in opposition on the our city website tonight in my brief time i want to talk about one issue garage parking revenue depending on who you

ask revenue from the parking garage is down 10 to 33 percent compared to the toll booth era era the current paid parking app system is flawed not in the way many think and not because of the app city staff have acknowledged directly to me that the city chose the wrong technology when toll booths were removed right now the garages operate on basically an honor system with minimal enforcement. For example, I open the app, I pay for my second hour. I decide to stay for another hour, a third hour. I ignore all the reminders on the app, and guess what? The app has no way to know whether I've left or not, and it can't charge me automatically. That's lost revenue to the city. So my questions are, why isn't the city fixing this before proposing paid on-street parking, and how much revenue has been lost over the years, probably enough that could cover maintenance that needs today. There is a straightforward solution.

Use technology like what is on E-470, scanning license plates on entry and exit so the city collects 100% of what is owed without needing enforcement, or maybe just bring back the toll booths. Yes, our parking system is broken. for more than a decade council has repeatedly postponed action

and I'm going to skip a little bit so I finish on time paid on street parking does not solve our supply issues if you take away anything tonight let it be this small businesses are ready willing to sit down roll up our sleeves and help find solutions that are not funded on the back of every business that makes old town thank you the heart of our fair city bribery Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays.

Raymond?

Yes. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the City Council. I'm here to support and reiterate the comments that you've already heard and will hear regarding the Saunders development. But my specific comments for... ! But my specific comments focus on what I believe is a crucial aspect ! of the overall relationship between developers and the City of Fort Collins. ! Trust that promises made will be promises kept.

Section 2A of that approved agreement specifies that the developer will, among other things, achieve a significant reduction in potable water usage by using non-potable water for irrigation. The section, to me at least, binds the developer to achieve that stated goal of using non-potable water, and to the best of my knowledge, that agreement has never been modified to reduce or eliminate those obligations. The agreement also states that the city will not issue building permits for Saunders East unless and until the developer has implemented the non-potable irrigation system in Saunders West and that system has been approved by the city. To me, in the absence of further information, it appears that the developer promised to install an irrigation system using non-potable water. That has not occurred. The agreement codifying this commitment has not been amended, to the best of my knowledge. And the city promised to withhold building permits for Waters Edge East or Saunders East until the non-potable water system in Saunders West has been installed and approved. In essence, the developer made a promise to the city, and the city promised to withhold building permits in the absence of the developer fulfilling that promise. to install a non-potable system. I respectfully ask the city to take such action as is required to ensure that both of these promises related to the non-potable system for irrigation are kept. Otherwise, the trust that it is foundational to successful city planning may be eroded. Thank you very much. Ann?

Hi, good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Ann DuPont.

Can you pull the mic just down in front of you? We can hear you better. Okay.

I live in Saunders neighborhood. I'm also on the Waters Edge Metro District Board. I bought into the neighborhood because of the lifestyle promised. Our developer has not delivered the benefits and amenities as promised in the service agreement and public benefits statement. As someone who is a consultant for an international consulting firm for many years, our contracts with clients specified deliverables were sacred and the bedrock of the work we performed. If something changed while we did the work, together we were transparent, discussed it, and issued agreed-upon change orders to the contract. And that wasn't always easy. I view the service agreement and the public benefits statement that Bill signed with the City of Fort Collins to establish a metro district in the same light. In that agreement, he was scheduled to deliver a non-potable irrigation system for the neighborhood, amenities such as a pool, parks, learning center, sports courts, on and on, and separate benefits for Saunders East versus Saunders West. The reality is that a non-potable system was created but modified to use potable water. We're paying premium rates, which are already creating a tipping point of expense with only 25 to 30 percent of the neighborhood built out the learning center and pool is being built but under duress because a new builder coming into the neighborhood would not would not agree to build unless that was funded the rest of our amenities are now on hold for the new development saunders east we won't see these probably till five to seven five to seven years out and some amenities between the two neighborhoods have been combined and the neighbors and the numbers just don't make sense. How is it that a developer can make these kinds of major changes with no transparency, discussion, or modification to the service agreement and public benefits statement? I ask that the City Council and the City of Fort Collins look into this matter. The City Planning Office has opened an investigation, and I urge you to get involved with oversight, resources, or whatever means you determine are appropriate to see what has happened and how to make it right. Thank you for your service and your time. Thank you very much.

Patrick? My name is Patrick Redmond. I am a volunteer for the Greg Lopez for Governor 2026 campaign and I'm here to listen. Thank you for coming. Ezra?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am here tonight to speak about Ordinance 195, Residential Waste Collection Fees. So I have several issues with this ordinance. So the first thing is my understanding of the opt-out fees was that they were to guarantee Republic a minimum income level under the contract to cover its fixed costs. Things like its truck fleet, customer service agents, expenses that it can't easily adjust based on the number of residents to use its services. That way, if a lot of people choose to opt out, Republic wouldn't take a hit for those expenses. To quote the city's website, the increase this year is, quote, driven primarily by rising costs in fuel, labor, and disposal fees, end quote. These are all largely variable costs that track pretty closely with the number of households that Republic services. So it doesn't make sense to me that these cost increases will be passed on to opt-out residents, or at least at the same rate as serviced residents. Second issue, if I'm understanding this correctly, the reason you're passing this increase now is because you are contractually obligated to match the opt-out fee to the Lost tier of contracted service, which increased 3.2% this year. But if that's the case, I'm very confused as to why a 3% cap was made explicit in the original ordinance if that contradicted the contract. It seems to me either council had every intention to waive that limit in the future if needed, in which case the ordinance was highly misleading to people who read it and thought that there was a hard 3% cap, or you did not intend to but you're being forced to by the contract, in which case that means you're setting public policy to match a contract rather than vice versa. The third issue I have is how these cost increases are being verified. This is very different from, for instance, utilities rate increase where the costs are all fully transparent. And even if they did happen to be overstated, the money is all going into the general fund and offsetting tax revenue anyway. Here, if the costs turn out to be overstated, that money is leaving our community. It's going straight to Republic's bottom line. And I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but I know there are a lot of accounting tricks that can be done to shift costs around, especially with a large company like Republic. So I am just curious what oversight or audits were done to ensure that these costs do track, these cost estimates do track closely with the actual cost that Republic is experiencing. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up. Hello, council members. My name is Rick Casey and I live in District 1.

I'm here tonight to urge the council to adopt the strongest possible building standards as this is one of the best investments we can make to reduce the city's contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. I moved to Fort Collins in 2018 and shortly thereafter volunteered to be the webmaster for the Fort Collins Sustainability Group. This organization has been following closely the actions of this council for over a decade.

We know, and the building experts in the community know, that improving the long-term building standards is one of the best opportunities where the city could improve on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and Lor future energy costs for its building occupants. In particular, we recommend not pushing the goal to meet these standards until 2035. The year 2030 should be the goal.

Denver has 2030 as their goal. Boulder's is 2027.

Why can't Fort Collins do at least as well? Furthermore, we ask that there should be no exemptions for apartment buildings, as these are ideal opportunities for the financial incentives that are being offered to help the building owners to meet these important goals. Both Denver and Boulder have adopted aggressive building standards about this. We should be doing so as well. Please recall that Fort Collins formally declared a climate emergency in 2019. That may seem like a distant memory today, but I was just watching a video today about a national emergency briefing that took place in London last week. A panel of top climate experts laid out what will happen if global tipping points are reached if the average global temperature increases by 2, 3, or 4 degrees centigrade.

Whole regions will become uninhabitable. Entire countries might not be able to grow their own food. And parts of countries will start to run out of fresh water. Climate change is serious. It is real. And we need serious policies here in Fort Collins to avert the worst that could happen. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, Julie. Julie? Good evening. My name is Julie Thompson, and I am speaking on behalf of my husband, Bill Kruger, and I. We closed escrow on our home in Saunders on 10-1-2022. At the signing of our escrow, we signed an amenities disclosure for Saunders. The following amenities were listed

with estimated completion dates. Learning Center Campus Pool and Hot Tub, mid-2023. Sports Courts at the Learning Center mid-2023, Flourish Park mid-2023, Everdee Park mid-2023, Serene Park mid-2023. There was even a state-of-the-art putting green plan. As you are aware, most

of the residents pay at least $4,000 to $5,000 a year in metro taxes, so expectations for amenities are high. Here it is, the end of 2025, and we have been living here for three years with no amenities. Big disappointment. No putting green, no sports courts going in phase one Saunders, and the small pool currently being built is now to be shared with Saunders Village across the highway, probably increasing traffic on Morningstar Way. Now we realize that none of this was guaranteed, but please understand our disappointment. We are requesting a City Council review of both the process by which changes were made to the development plan for Saunders Village as well as the changes themselves. The Planning Commission approved the development plan for Saunders Village on 11-20-25. A material modification was made without City Council approval as required in the Consolidated Service Plan approved 9-18-2018. Approval by the City Council for such a change was stipulated in Part D of the plan. The change made meets the definition of quote material modification section 15 number 3 the modification was significant Saunders village was to have a seven million dollar senior center constructed these plans included a swimming pool and therapy pools as well as sports courts the swimming pool and hydrotherapy pools were removed from the plans the alternate plan is for Saunders village to share the pool that is across turn and located in Saunders. The alternative plan is unreasonable and not consistent with local community centers. Turnberry is a major arterial highway that separates these two communities. Distances will make walking there with pool towels, etc. inconvenient and unsafe for those not near the facilities. Thank you very much. And then last up we have Jim.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff. My name is Jim Groyal. I live at 523 Spindrift Court. I have comments about the Building Performance Standard proposal.

First of all, let me say that I support, in general, a hybrid approach that combines impactful BPS regulation with enhanced financial incentives.

As staff has indicated, financial incentives alone aren't enough for us to reach our goals.

I also have comments in two specific areas for the BPS. One is the removal of multifamily buildings as a covered building category. I recognize that rent affordability is a major problem for our city and that multifamily building owners may simply pass BPS upgrade costs on to their renters. But one of the reasons I got excited about BPS was that I thought it could help address a classic principal agent problem, and that is the misaligned renter-landlord motivations when the renter pays the utilities. The renter can make some efficiency improvements, but not big impact upgrades, such as adding insulation. The landlord can make the upgrades, but has little financial incentive to do so because the renter is paying the utilities. So the question is, has the city weighed the question of whether utility savings could be greater than or equal to the rent increases under that scenario? And the final area that I have a comment on is phased incentives in which building owners that perform upgrades early would have access to increased incentives. And I understand the emissions and climate benefits of that. But would it be fair? Would we be directing funds away from where they are most needed? Would this steer more incentive funding to those least in need of it and less to those most in need of it? Is it not the most financially well-off building owner that can afford quick action? the most financially well off building owner can afford that can afford quick action.

! Thank you. Thank you very much. ! That brings us to the end of general public comment. ! Does anyone on council have a follow up to public comment? ! Go ahead.

! Thanks to everyone that came out tonight.

! I know I did see a couple of you when I was actually out shopping downtown on Sunday. But I'm just going to cover a few things.

We will be talking about building performance standards, of course, when that comes up in the regular agenda. when that comes up in the regular agenda.

I do have a question for the city manager about the cost of the design study for the EPIC gate. I mean, in looking at the page that was set up, it would appear, I mean, that you have to look at design options. And is there a way to do that for free or is it always going to cost money to get that done?

Yeah, I do think so much of this is an issue of timing. Some of the comments that were made on due diligence and thorough process is really what we're in the midst of doing right now and so there is some expenditure of dollars so that we are going to be able to answer the question accurately of what would different options cost so that's work that's underway again same with the traffic study and I want to assure people we really do here and our planning engagement before any kind of recommendation would be made there is no recommendation for an option at this

point, we're fully in due diligence. Okay, great. Thanks, Kelly. And yeah, I also want to add, as someone who lives in a neighborhood with, so I live by Shepherds and Elementary, and people cut

through the Nelson Farm neighborhood all the time. And I don't know if it increased or if my perception of it increased as my toddler started to go to school there. There have been many things

implemented in the neighborhood that have really helped people cutting through, which are those speed tables, which really slow people down and so make it very inconvenient to go through. I'm not saying, you know, that is way down the line if something happened, but that's always an option in your neighborhood now, if it's something you'd like to consider.

As far as what's happening over at Water's Edge, I don't think we've, where is this and is this even something we can talk about?

Yeah, this is something that I'm also just learning about earlier. and so would like to ask the team to do a follow-up to council because I think we're in the process of doing some further exploration ourselves. Okay great

thank you and then I just wanted to follow up I think with about the opt-out

fees for the trash I if I understood you correctly so yes it is correct that those opt-out fees are the Lost service fee and that came from best practices across the United States of if you really want people to participate to get the benefits that we're looking for which for me are all in that environmental space as well as in the safety space that those opt-out fees have to be the same as the Lost service fee if I misunderstood your question please feel free to email but I was also wondering if there's someone

from staff who could speak to how we do our due diligence and I mean I know we have a ton of contracts. This is one of many types of contracts we have, but how are we doing the due diligence to make sure that costs aren't overstated? Yeah, I'm looking. I don't know if we have anyone

here tonight who's going to be able to answer the specifics of that, but what I can do is commit to follow up with you because we do have some very rigorous processes in terms of our contract oversight, so we'll follow up in writing if that's okay. Yeah, that's great. Thank you.

anybody else comes from Wilson thanks mayor I don't get much more mic time I retired January 13th so I gotta take advantage of it I appreciate I was gonna ask for a follow-up on the Metro district thing I'm not a supporter of Metro districts residential Metro districts in any way shape or form and this is one of the things I feared so I look forward to seeing that memo and And another thing I'd ask as it relates to that topic is that we examine our policies now if we're doing more metro districts, because more will be coming, that we make sure that they're enforceable, what's promised is enforceable, and if they don't deliver, that there's real consequences. I think it's a kind of a two-prong look at this specific thing, what's going on. But even a bigger thing is to make sure we don't repeat this over and over and over again. The promises are made. The city signs off on it. The benefits are accrued by the developer. And then the things that are promised are not delivered or developed a decade or so later. It's pretty infuriating to me. So I look forward to the memo. As far as the parking downtown, my thinking's evolved a little in this one. I'm sorry that I'm going to miss out on the final decision making. Do I have a work session on this on Tuesday? We do. Specifically on the metering aspect?

That will be part of it, yes.

Okay. So I'll have more to say then, but I remember when downtown in the 70s and I was working on about a dozen historic building renovations before there was an old town and you could roll a bowling ball down the street and not hit a car. there's hardly any exaggeration in that for a period of about five years i toppled a three-story scaffold over in the building next to the cupboard into the street and the only thing that was hurt was my pride there was no no automobiles no people were hit it was so quiet that no one ever noticed that the scaffolding went over so i think we have to tread carefully on messing with something that's working. And I'll be asking on Tuesday night how much of this has to do with the legitimate funding versus we know the pricing model is upside down, according to what the experts say, that we should be charging on the street and not in the parking garages. But maybe we should be looking at other solutions that add up to some real change, but not something so dramatic that we endanger kind of what we've made as a very special place. So my thinking's not just about the science. It's about more than that, because I remember the days when it was very, very, very different downtown. And I like it in most ways a lot better now. And then on the punch-through in Adora Park, I was on the council in 1985 that made that decision not to punch it through and to promise that it wouldn't be punched through. and my hope, since I won't be around for that one either, is we find other solutions to deal with the needs of Eadorah of Epic and not do the punch through. So this is my chance in case I don't get another. I hope we look at other ways to deal with those legit concerns and honor the commitment that was made in 1985 not to punch that street through because I think the concerns are legitimate and I think we can come up with some more creative solutions and not impact neighborhoods and the children's safety in the ways that that might do. And then I'll have a lot more to say when we get to the Energy Code climate action issues when we get to that topic. Thanks, everybody, for coming out. It's really important. Please remember that you're the top of the organizational chart. It says residents slash citizens. I don't know if we've changed that yet, but i'll say residents then the city council is below that on the organizational chart so you're at the top of it coming out makes a difference and i hope you keep doing it great anybody else

councilman thank you mayor and i just wanted to thank everybody who came out we have a great turnout tonight and everybody spoke very eloquently uh my question is for our city manager um kelly can you speak to what efforts are going in with getting anecdotal data from business owners downtown as we talk about potential changes in the parking structure? Yeah, and I'm going to maybe

ask Eric, who is our parking services manager, to come up and just speak a little bit to some of that. And we'll certainly be including a full report of that when we have our comments or our work session presentation. But Eric, can you talk just a little bit about some of the engagement that's happening with the downtown community?

Yes, thank you. Eric Kussberg, Senior Manager of Park and Services, Mayor, Members of Council. Leading up to this efforts here in 2025, we did some pre-work in 2023 before we got with the consultant for the report, and that report was provided, the draft report was provided in June of this year. So we did a series of public engagement stand-up meetings with some business owners specific, and then we had three public events in the downtown area of the square and also in the visitor center. to engage the public as much as they could for those stand-up events. And then also, we've met with a number of board and commissions and some committees like that, specifically the downtown area.

Okay. And with regard, I know several folks mentioned there are additional strategies that they would like to be able to have be part of the discussion. Are those strategies that have been shared with y'all for us to include in our work session?

Well, I can't say all the strategies have been shared, of course. Part of the public engagement process early on in 2023 led to the assessment being done by the consultant. The recommendations were made, and then based on some of that public engagement we've done, we have made some modifications to our planning and also identified some internal levers or some immediate action times we could do. aside from or in conjunction with any paid downtown plan. So we're taking all feedback in consideration for our downtown area.

Okay, thank you. And I appreciate all the folks who have taken the time to write to council. And we've certainly heard the sentiment of the concerns. But if you do have specific strategies that you think may or may not be being considered or that we need to include in our work session, please write to council and share those and then we can discuss with staff. Thank you so much.

Great. Anybody else have a follow-up?

And, of course, thank you very much for coming tonight. It was a great turnout.

We will go quickly to consent calendar. Does anybody have any items to pull from consent?

Kelly Olson.

I've got to figure out which number it is now. I know. I got all focused here. item number 16 adjusting snow and ice removal requirements okay anyway and

just a brief explanation of why I want to comment on the fact that about the budget and code compliance staff staffing levels etc and why I don't

think this is a good idea. Okay. Anybody else? I'm not going to pull the item on the boat, but I think it's just so long as SAP is, I'll just have a couple of questions for that and follow up. Okay. So one item pulled. Anyone else? Seeing none. Do I hear a motion or consent? I move to adopt the consent calendar. It's one through 26 minus 16. Second. Seconded by Paddyandi.

further discussion will the clerk please call the roll

Canonico

yes

Arndt yes Francis yes Olsen yes yes

that motion passes six to zero with one absent

do council members have any other comments on consent I do

I just have that question about the boat

Just because I had questions from the community, if someone could come up and just describe, like, why we're saying boats, how the definition of a boat is.

Did we instead meet large motorized watercraft? Maybe does it include kayaks and so on and so forth? If you could just clear up those questions, I think that would be helpful.

Yes, we've got Clay Frickey and Noah Beals from our Planning and Development Department who can speak to that.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and members of Council. So the purpose of putting that definition in the Land Use Code is right now there is no definition in the Land Use Code for boat sales, and it's a permitted use, and so we wanted to make sure that we had something in the Land Use Code that made it very clear what boat sales institution is. And so generally speaking, when we write a definition, we try to err on the side of capturing lots of activities rather than trying to define specifically what is a boat, what is a kayak, what is a canoe, because then it gets very lengthy. And so that's why we opted for saying boats and watercraft to try and make that fairly all-encompassing. And then what we also clarified is that what a boat sales place of business is is something that principally sells boats. It doesn't include a place like REI, for example, that also sells kayaks and canoes. And so we made sure to make it very clear that if that's just a part of your business but not your main purpose of business, that's an accessory use and it's separate, and so it wouldn't be captured in that definition. And so that's what we are trying to do with the definition.

Great. I just had that question about the accessory cells. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. just publicly clarifying that. Anybody else have any questions with that?

Oh, not on that. Sorry. I have a question on a different one.

Something else. Okay. Is that okay? Yeah, we're done. I'm done. Unless you guys are done. Okay.

We're done with boat sales. Thank you. I just have a question on item 23 about the NOCA Water Alliance. I noticed that there was no Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Sunset Water District, West Fort Collins. Is that because they're included in the municipality Fort Collins, or like what is, am I missing something with that?

Nope, I'm just looking to see if Tyler or Jill would like to speak to this, maybe both of them.

Yeah, I'm happy to dive in real quick with that question. So this group, the Water Alliance, was spun out of the regional manager, city manager, mayor, mayor, pro tem meetings a number of years ago.

sure if they weren't aware of it if it was specifically they do not want to adopt them specifically they do not want to adopt them or somewhere in between which it sounds like maybe

that's where we're at i believe it's mostly the conversation around what does committing to the principles commit us to um as staffs um staff's opinion is that this represents the city's position on water in northern Colorado. We want water to mostly stay in northern Colorado that's already here. And so I think some of our partners got more in the weeds of, well, what does that commit us to? We don't believe it commits us to anything other than a starting point for conversation of sort of what those principles articulate. Okay, great. Thank you. Great. Anybody else

comments on consent? Councilmember Olson. Thank you. I'm requesting a follow-up on item 12. in writing. I don't need anything tonight. It deals with the Soapstone Prairie Headwaters Restoration Project, and it talks about, because it's been open about 20 years now, and we have grazing leases there, and it's taking care of a one-mile reach of stream and wetland complex to incorporate a rest cycle from livestock grazing and through wildlife-friendly fencing. So my follow-up question is, and I'm not assuming this is the case, but I'd like to know what we've done in the last two decades to prevent the destruction of stream and wetlands, the stream and wetlands with our grazing contracts with private entities. If this is just something that we're just starting now after two decades or what the backstory is there, I don't need anything tonight. I'd like it in detail and writing about. Is that not a clear request?

It is. Yeah, I'll follow up with the team on that.

throughout the whole soapstone area yeah the wetlands and the and the stream yeah and and

i'll follow up with them on on um just the magnitude and the sort of the depth of what you're asking for and um how much we can put together in writing okay thank you and then the

other one was on on the water issue um as well and that that question was um what going on here tonight it talked about the risks and challenges of why convening this group and I don't have anything against convening the group it's just not surprising and disappointing that they mentioned hydrological conditions increasing demand for water economic conditions the cost of infrastructure projects but climate change isn't mentioned at all and I find that somewhat disappointing and telling that in the reasons for doing this the climate change which by the way all of the data as I'll mention later is just getting worse and worse so if they ever redo this I know we're voting on this we voted on this resolution but I think they should be taking climate change into account as well in their decision-making process and it's a pretty

disappointing any other comments okay seeing none there are no staff reports tonight do council members have any reports

council member canonical yeah um council member pinotero and i got to partake in a groundbreaking ceremony today for the harmony underpass um it's really exciting to see this uh northwest connection coming through and um really emphasizes how much mobility is central to what we do in the city and also I want to announce that the siphon overpass will be open this weekend so hope to see a lot of you out biking and rolling and walking and enjoying that new infrastructure piece for our active modes component any others

comes yeah just really quickly I had the privilege of attending our National League of Cities City Summit in Salt Lake City a few weekends ago and it was very telling as it always is to see what they concentrate on and number one even more so than last year was housing and then of course a lot of talk around AI as well as civility to which I am really proud of our city I think we really exemplify disagreeing without being disagreeable and so I just feel so

fortunate to serve here thanks great all right let's do this is it okay we just go ahead to the one item that was pulled and then we'll take a break before we get on to the other parts of the menu or pin you agenda okay so item 16 you ready

step ready yep we do not have a presentation but are ready to answer any

questions okay great we'll just give you a second to come on up first I'll ask the public if they'd like to speak on this item item 16 that was pulled from consent on to discussion is there anyone on line seeing none okay council members comments or questions comes my role thanks mayor yeah for just so that

people that are tuning in or in the audience that are familiar basically right now and that this part of it isn't going to change that if it snows you're supposed to clear the snow off your sidewalks certain period of time I think it's 24 hours or something but where I where I make mistakes later when it's your turn you can correct me and I want that so people have the right information And I think this now says that if it's two inches or less, you don't need to do that in that period of time. And two inches to me, maybe one inch, but probably not, because around here I've been long enough, as we all know, to see the snow turn to ice at some times, too, when it warms up just enough. And then the one or two inches turns to ice, and then it's more of a problem. So I don't see the necessity, the need for this. but what I'm really upset over and I'm mad at myself that I voted for the budget I should have been I raised the question but I should have tried to change it where I should have just voted against the budget we should have focused more internally on the cuts in the city organization and not externally on what services we provide to the public my bad I wouldn't make that mistake again I hadn't made it before I guess I was going along with the team play thing but the reason given for this and a memo is the code compliance and administrating staff levels will be reduced because of the budget we passed and I find that real unfortunate that we reduce the budget in code compliance and for those that don't really pay attention we're not after finding people that's after several tries at least two and if you're just absolutely ignoring the city and not trying at all then you may, may, long time, long term, get a fine, but it's basically just getting compliance. I've gotten visits before that I complied with, like a limb less than six foot over a sidewalk, and I see them on my block where bushes are covering three-fourths of the sidewalk currently, no actions ever given, but those are important things, forcing children to walk into and others to walk into the street because of bushes and those kinds of things. So code compliance to me is very important. I really regret voting for the budget. I hope the city organization and the next council corrects it promptly when they're able to do it, but it's led to this kind of change that I think is unwise. I agree with the citizens that say it's a degradation of the quality of life in neighborhoods, and most importantly, scientifically, when that one or two inches turns to ice, it's going to be a lot bigger problem, and so that's my take, and I won't be voting for it I think it's an unwise decision that will eventually be reversed whether or not we properly fund code compliance and I would urge the next council if there are budget cuts to look internal in the organization rather than external and how you impact the people paying the bills and now it just reminded me that I wanted to comment but I won't now because it's passed that we're not responsible for the property tax increase. There, I said it. So now it's your turn.

Apologize. I'm Lori Schwarz. I'm the Planning and Development Services Director. I have with me tonight Jay Hernandez, who is our Senior Code Compliance Supervisor. I would like to clear up something that I think was a misunderstanding about what we are proposing this evening. One of the things that I think maybe was unclear in the memo is that we are not changing the requirement for homeowners and property owners that are abutting these sidewalk areas to clear the property, regardless of the amount of snow that falls. What we are changing is our abatement process. So right now, it does not matter whether it is a dusting to six inches. The next step is abatement in many cases if someone does not resolve that 24-hour removal of snow. So what we are changing it to is that if there is a snowfall of two inches or more, we would then, I guess, initiate that abatement response. Otherwise, we still have all of the normal means of being able to get compliance with someone. That includes fines, citations. So we will still be enforcing the removal of snow on the sidewalk and that removal. But we are changing it so that we do not do abatement actions unless we have ice accumulation or two inches of snow accumulation. This is primarily, I had mentioned it in the staff report, we often get a lot of complaints about the abatement actions that we take. It's probably one of the heaviest loads for us is appeals on that. So two inches seems to us to be a reasonable time when we would step in and abate it, hire a contractor, and then actually have to go through that entire process. I will tell you that regardless of whether or not we did have some of our resourcing constraints, we believe that this is a good ordinance to consider because we are trying to set a standard for when we would step in to do abatement instead of just automatically moving straight to abatement regardless of the snowfall. So I hope that clarifies things.

Yeah, I was aware that the fact that you're still responsible for clearing the snow, which came in in a second memo today, a clarifying memo, so I did see that, that you're still responsible. But I'm still not clear, and I understand what abatement is, and I did mention that I understood that first part. But I'm not clear what happens if two inches of snow falls and it's cold, and I don't, less than two inches, one inch, three, four inches, and I don't clear it for three weeks and it's still cold and it's still there and everybody's cleared around me. I'm still not clear because you said other enforcement can still come in rather than an abatement. So are you going to cite someone for that?

We could potentially cite them if it's still remaining, yes, sir.

What are the other options?

They're the conditional.

Well, and I guess it would depend on, at that point,

one of the things that I think would be very possible is that ice had accumulated and any accumulation of ice could allow us to do an abate manager this or like this ordinance update

further questions from council or comments

I think you have a solid plan here I'll vote yes um Do I have a motion?

Yes. I move to adopt on first reading of ordinance number 203-2025, amending section 20-102 of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of adjusting snow and ice removal requirements. Second.

Seconded by Pino Taro. Further comments? Discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Pino Taro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? No. Patyandi? Yes.

Canonico? Yes. that ordinance passes five to one then we will go and we're gonna take a how much you guys want ten minute break we'll start we'll resume at 7 45 and when we'll go into the regular schedule agenda

welcome back for Collins we're ready to start a pick up on the agenda where we left off and we will be when i say item 29 just has that been moved to 30. um it is now item 29. 30 item 30. okay i just want to be accurate okay item 30. um is there a staff presentation we do

have a staff presentation and i'm going to turn it to marcus cold iron our chief building official

to speak to this item. Thank you, Kelly. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Marcus Kolar. I'm the Chief Building Official for the City of Fork Ones, here to talk about the adoption of the 2024 building codes. I'll start with just a quick background. City has reviewed, amended, and adopted the latest version of these I-Codes every three years since 2006. and we have had building codes adopted in the city of Fort Collins since 1924, so just over 100 years. Foundationally, the code's purpose is to safeguard the public's health, life, and safety by regulating structural strength and stability, sanitation, light. by regulating structural strength and stability, sanitation, light ventilation, and energy conservation. ! Local amendments give us the opportunity to take a more strategic approach ! We are going to be able to take a more strategic approach to the city goals and community goals. Tonight, what I am seeking is a recommendation. Staff recommends the adoption of the code package to update the current 2021 codes to the 2024 codes, including local amendments. four codes, including local amendments. A little bit about of our approach, building codes, as you know, are a critical piece of accomplishing community goals and vision and closely aligning with many city plans, as you see on the slide. We took a very collaborative approach. This go around and aligned regionally where we were able to, of course, understanding that every community is different. They have different goals, different vision, but there are some foundation pieces that we were able to collaborate on and better align regionally. Additionally, we took a hard look at all of our amendments to simplify and clarify them. This results in a cleaner and easier to understand codes. And throughout the process, we considered the impact to housing affordability and the impact of those changes.

The steps to get us here, late in 2024, ICC released all of the I-codes.

We did a staff review for a few months before standing up two review committees,

one of those being a code adoption committee and the other being an energy code advisory board.

Those were comprised of building professionals, developers, builders, other chief building officials from surrounding jurisdictions as well as several staff members.

We had a council work session on September 9th, and we just recently concluded our boards and commission roadshow, which I'll cover on the next slide and here for first reading tonight.

Boards and commissions and public engagement was pretty heavy on this project. we visited and presented with seven city boards and commissions and we provided memos

to two of those. From those that were requested, we were able to obtain motions of support

and they voted unanimously in all of those. And for those that didn't provide a motion,

They provided a memo which was provided in your packet tonight.

Additionally to those boards and commissions, we met with three external stakeholder groups,

the Northern Colorado Home Builders Association, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.

The feedback we received was fairly positive and full of support.

They really appreciated the added flexibility, specifically with EV charging, redefining ADUs and duplexes, adding flexibility there, and then several of the other things that we did to increase flexibility in our building codes.

Alignment with city plans and community goals. One of the concerns which comes up with every code adoption is affordability and what's the cost impact to builders. We had really good conversations around this as we met with these groups. Yes, it does increase the cost of construction slightly, but in return, you are reducing utility bills for those that are living in the house. And historically, building codes have generally increased the cost of construction 2% to 3%.

We're actually at right around 1% or less, depending on what components they're using in those buildings.

So this is, in our eyes, yes, it is adding some to the cost of construction, which every adoption will. We're building better homes, more energy efficient homes.

But we were able to mitigate some historically what we've seen at a 2% or 3% increase to the cost of construction.

Real quick, covering just the key changes. As we covered in the work session, there were a few state requirements that were at play that are different than normal code adoptions.

One of those being the residential stair modernization, which allows a single exit to serve up to a five-story multifamily building. The other one being Colorado wildfire resiliency codes, which is setting exterior hardening requirements and landscape requirements.

Some of the key local amendments. We did a lot of work around the EV charging requirements for projects.

added a lot of flexibility and allowing for trade-offs to those percentages that are required

in the table. The ADU appendix, as mentioned a little earlier, this provides a little bit more flexibility when adding an ADU to an existing structure. It's trading off a required fire rating for communicating smoke and CO alarms between those units. Water demand calculator, which is

right-sizing water piping distribution systems in buildings. This saves water use and energy use. Emergency use appendix, this is something that we're just codifying community-based shelters and seasonal overflow shelters, which are long-standing programs in the city of Port Collins. They just have yet to be codified in building code. And then finally, several energy code updates moving from prescriptive to a modeled performance path.

Next few slides will cover some of the things that came up in the work session.

One of those was gender neutral signage in existing buildings.

We discussed this briefly in the work session. staff took that opportunity to dive in and identify several paths of options that we could do moving forward on this. What's proposed in the staff recommendation is to require gender neutral signage for existing single room user restroom in an existing building for an alteration to that restroom that requires a permit. The other options are a little bit more heavy on the resourcing size and have more of an impact financially and timeline-wise for building owners and business owners. The first one there would require gender neutral signage in the existing building possessing a single user restroom for an alteration that requires a permit. So that option, even if you're just replacing your water heater or a window, if you had a single user restroom that didn't have gender neutral signage, you would have to install it, even though the work that took place had nothing to do with that restroom. This would likely result in additional inspections. We'd have to come back and the notification would happen at the inspection and additional staff resourcing to be able to take on those additional inspections. And then the third and final option that we had identified through discussions would to be required general neutral signage for all existing single user restrooms, period. This would be a huge change to staff resourcing. We'd have to find a way to identify which buildings in the city have single user restrooms, which ones don't have gender neutral signage.

We'd have to start an enforcement path once we are a communication path once we identified those bathrooms. And it's a pretty heavy lift and heavy handed from a lens of that business owner, building owner.

So that's why we would recommend only requiring them when they are getting a permit for an alteration to a single user bathroom. They're already doing that work. They're involved with that bathroom specifically, and it's pretty easy to just replace that signage to gender neutral if it's not already. The other thing we had discussed at the work session was a little bit more detail on the comparison between the state requirements and local requirements that we're bringing forward. So the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, there's no significant differences. The only change is we're not adopting it as a code as a whole. We're splitting it where it makes sense. So for the structure hardening requirements, it sits pretty squarely in building code. And then for the landscaping requirements, that's more of a land use code zoning item. So we took those parts of the code and we're embedding them into the land use code to make it simpler as far as getting that information in front of our developers and the people involved early and often in that process. The second one, residential buildings, they're modernization. There are absolutely no changes between what the state bill states and what we're proposing in the building codes. We took that language and we just embedded it in the building code.

State of Colorado model electric and solar ready code. That's a code that ensures that new homes and buildings are equipped with infrastructure to accommodate PV, electric vehicles in future switching to electric appliances. Yep.

I am sorry. Fort Collins has met this code since the 2021 adoption, and we haven't done any substantial changes specific to that. We align with what the state requires there.

The state of Colorado model low energy and carbon code. This code encourages reduced carbon emissions for new and renovated homes and buildings.

Where we do detour on here is we are also moving away from prescriptive to a performance path, modeled path, and our targets are adjusted higher than what the state's minimums would require for that code.

And the final item is a more detailed cost impact analysis. So we had took two established cost analysis reports, one from the Department of Energy, the other from the National Association of Home Builders.

Both of those on their own reported a reduction in the cost of construction.

So we took those and we expanded the analysis to include the Fort Collins specific amendments. and what we what we came up with is what you see in the table here so the 2024 i codes without the international energy code is negative 200 2227 to an increase of 1000 why there's a difference there is that's component specific so it really depends on the nuances of the builder and what they're

adding some of the larger increases to the body of the codes from the 21 to the 24 had to do with

decks. So if you are installing a deck, it will now require an increase in waterproofing and

flashing to protect water intrusion from entering that. It'll require you to go up further than it had previously. And so that's one of the main things there. There was also significant increase for those homes that use stucco as a siding that requires additional weatherproofing. So

So as an example, homes that aren't utilizing those specific components may not see the increases where someone that would would see those increases.

Local amendment changes between the 21 codes and the 24 codes without the IECC is neutral. There was no substantive difference of an increase or a decrease to the changes that we made there. And then the energy code update from the 2021 code to the 2024 code showed $2,008 per residential unit increase from the 21 to the 24 codes. One thing to note there is it doesn't include any available tax credits. So there are tax credits available for installing heat pumps to the tune of $1,250 there.

The only other thing I'll note on this slide is that we did use the average valuation for the year of 2024. That's the most recent full year we had in comparison. The average valuation for a residential unit was just under $300,000,

which would put us right around that 1% or less,

depending on the component specifics that they choose when they're building their home.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions you all have. Okay, we'll go to the public first. Any members of the public here to speak on this item?

Anyone online? Okay, great. We'll go to council questions. Council Member Paginian.

Thank you, Mayor. And this is less a question than a comment, but I wanted to send some appreciation out to staff who connected with our Women and Gender Equity Advisory Board. I know that the gender-neutral bathroom signage which was something they were actively engaged in,

and I heard great feedback about the support they received from staff.

And my understanding is that they have supported the staff recommended strategy. Is that correct? Okay. That is correct. Okay. Thank you so much for everybody who worked on that.

Councilmember Paget. It's okay. The other P. And actually, she said exactly what I was going to say for my first question. So thanks. No, it's all good. I do have a question about this slide 11. I don't know. I just am having trouble connecting the dots of what you're showing us here for slide 11. Like, is this basically saying for a residential single, well, for any of the new construction for single family or multifamily that the costs will be neutral for the most part? No. So, so I tried to split it up and maybe I

I should have had a column for total increase, right? Which is difficult because the first one. So I split it up where the prescriptive requirements, so just what ICC produces, the change of ICC with no changes to staff or local amendments would be negative $2,227 up to an increase of $1,000. Then our local amendments were neutral without the energy code updates. then the energy code updates was about $2,008 per residential unit. So what you can extrapolate from that is that the maximum would be $3,008 per residential unit, or you would see just below $0 increase, depending on the component-specific. If they add a deck, they'll have to meet an increase requirements.

If we were just adopting the 2024 I codes it would be a savings to a

$1,000 additional increase so it could be up to three thousand dollars per residential unit

2000 of that being because we are requiring additional energy code updates on top of what the requirement is

Is that correct Marcus that is accurate? Okay. Okay. Thank you

Further questions from council council member Olson then Emily

Thank you. I'd just like a follow-up between first and second reading on the water demand calculator method. It says it can result in savings on water development fees. Fine with me. Elko and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and material costs during construction. Fine with me. But then it goes on. It says this method requires designing to modern peak flows, which can save energy water use after occupancy and improve water quality. I just want some meat on the bones of those statements of what that means. not now, just in a follow-up, because we've got lots going yet tonight, just for me to understand how the water demand calculator is going to result in improved water quality specifically, but the others listed there as well. And then I just want a clarification, because this sounds real good, and it's a slide 10, if you can pull that up. Fort Collins path to zero carbon new construction by 2030. But it says we're going to do that by 2030, but the 2024 code that we're adopting in the last month of 2025 taking effect, I'm assuming in 2026, two weeks after second reading, 10 days, two weeks, whatever. So that's taking effect in 2026. And it says it's going to be by 2030. But if we're reviewing the 2030 code in late 2031, which if we're on the same path, and then it takes effect 2032, why are we saying the Fort Collins path to zero carbon new construction by 2030? I just always want, I'm not implying anything. I just want us to be as clear as we can about facts and the truth. And to me it would be we'd be on the path to zero carbon new construction by 2030 because that's when the code, the 2030 code would kick in.

Yes, we didn't intend any misunderstanding. That's why we put by the 2030 code. We didn't say by the 2030 year because you are accurate that we would be reviewing,

with a slight correction, we would be reviewing the 2030 code in 2030 with the adoption at the very end of 2030 for 2030.

I just think for everybody concerned in the future a parentheses taking effect most likely in January 2032 So it's clear. Yeah, sir. Thank you. That's all I got

Great Yeah, thank you. I had some questions and if I miss Interpreting because there's a lot of edits to read through just let me know So it looks like we're reducing the threshold for permits for accessory buildings and fences and then one other item Is that correct? I think we're going from 200 for an accessory unit to 120 square feet Do you want me to pull it? Yeah.

For the permit exemptions? Is that what you're asking?

The way I read it is that the threshold to get to requiring a permit. So if you're building an accessory building over 120 square feet, now you're required for a permit, whereas before it's 200.

And then it was a six-foot fence or seven-foot, now it's a six-foot fence.

so i'd have to revisit so i'd have to revisit those because i don't think that that was

i don't remember those being changes it's like 600 pages so i'm not going to pull it up right now but i can send you i know where i can okay yeah i can um that would be great just to follow up and and if so why are we reducing that um and then uh i there was a question that i got that was about the structural design criteria under the IBC for the requirement to have a more robust structure. I believe that their concern was about the wind requirement and the additional building materials to have a more robust structure and the wind we were using was like the highest and we're

not the windiest city in Colorado. Yeah I'll touch on a couple things here because I'm not sure exactly where that comment came from. So design wind speed that calculation and the wind speed the basic wind speed used in that calculation hasn't changed since 2018. Okay. So it's 140 miles per hour, or you can utilize the Colorado Front Range Gust Map, which is established by ASCE-10, which is American Society of Civil Engineers.

They run reports and data and frequently update these things for the front range and across the nation.

And what it does is that wind speed is actually on the foothills, it's 140 miles an hour. And by the time you get out to I-25, it's 115 miles per hour.

That's how it's been since the 2018 codes. Prior to that, I think it was 129 instead of 140. They did increase after the last round of reports and review by that organization. I don't know if they're confusing it with snow loads. So snow loads, there was a change prescriptively in the code that on its face, it appears like it's going to require the structure to be built a lot stronger.

What they did, so the 2024 IBC changed the ground snow load values. They are now ultimate values, where in previous codes, they were provided as allowable stress. So the calculation for that actually changed in and of itself.

and the snow load changed from 35 pounds per square foot up to 50 pounds per square foot,

but the outcome of the calculation is the same. So when people look at the table and they aren't familiar with the changes to the calculation,

they see it went from 35 to 50, and that's a pretty staggering increase.

However, it's just because they changed the calculation to get the outcome

because of those changes from allowable stress to ultimate values,

and now they're utilizing a different method to find the outcome, which is why you have to have 50 rather than 35.

Okay, that's super helpful. And I'll reach out and clarify with them about that. And if they have additional questions, I'll put you all in touch. So would you say that you don't think that we're increasing the structural design requirements?

Not at all. In fact, we're getting even more flexible.

And the last thing I'll mention, because I'm a building code geek and I really love this stuff, is they released what's called a hazard tool. So now, and we've included this in the amendment, so you can use the values that are specified specifically in the table, or you can use this hazard tool,

which gets as detailed as parcel-specific wind and snow values. So if you don't want to use this general and you want to get really into detail on your specific parcel,

So we will allow the calculations based off of that new hazard tool.

Okay. That's super cool. Thank you. And then why do triplexes fall under the IBC and not the IRC?

Triplexes don't fall under the IBC?

They fall under the IRC? I thought it was the way I read it, and I said I could be wrong, is the IRC was just one to two unit buildings.

No, up to three.

Up to three. Okay, great. I just read it wrong. Thank you. And then the way I read it is that when this goes into effect, we require anything further to comply with the codes.

Is that correct? So if you're in the middle of the development review process, or is there a certain point you're in the development review process that we don't require that?

Yeah, so it's any permit application that is submitted after the effective date of the codes would have to meet the new codes.

So depending on where they're at in the development review process, if they haven't submitted for a building permit prior to the effective date, they would have to meet the new codes.

I think a follow-up would be helpful on this because I still can't map out the development review process about when you would be in the development review process. And then when you would have to make changes based on the code adoption.

because I believe that, like, Blamore County has a six-month period where they adopt the code

and then it's not, they don't implement it for six months to give people who are in the development review process to go back. They don't have to go back and change everything.

And my concern is that while the building material cost is relatively low, the cost to redo your plans, especially if you're already in the development review,

and then have that add significant cost and time to project. So could you, in between first and second reading, kind of outline when this would take effect if you're in the development review process?

So maybe I'll just ask some, just clarifying, just to make sure that you're getting the information you want.

Are you asking how many projects may be impacted by the effective date?

So as council, you would have the discretion to push out the effective date. You mentioned Larimer County pushing six months. Historically, we've never done that. It's always become affected 10 days after second reading. So if it were to stay the same track as it has historically, it'd be December 26th would be the effective day of the new codes. So anyone that hasn't submitted a building permit by then, which they can't submit a building permit until they're done with FDP, so the planning process. They have to be done with the planning process before they can submit a building permit.

Exactly. I think it's the fact that you have to be done with the process is the problem for me. I think that if you're submitted for development review at the beginning of the process, you shouldn't have to necessarily change your project because development process can take years.

Yeah, and we could, as council, you could certainly decide to extend the effective date.

So I think so. Well, I don't think it's the effective date. I think it's where you are in the development review process. because not all projects are completed in the development review process during the same time

period. So you would want to add something to the effect of anybody that's in the development review process, no matter what stage they're in, would stay on the 2021 codes rather than 24 codes?

I think we can do some follow-up conversation. What I believe I hear you asking, and again, we'll make sure is if there's a certain level of project and you're not specifying that level because you're asking us to do the work of What level makes sense? But is there a certain level where we would say you are grandfathered under the code you started in For up to say six months or whatever seems like a reasonable period Anything new that was coming is coming in would still be Required to meet the new codes that are adopted. Yes

I'm not sure if the building permit is the appropriate time in the development review process to be cut off It may be earlier in the process. Yeah, I hear what you're asking. So I think

It again, it's it's a when certain things would be effective. Yeah, so we can we can talk about that between readings

Okay, thank you. That's all my questions great anybody else

Julie

why are there so many ordinances associated with us there's like eight right that was 11

is it just because of the way it is in the code or is it it so it's it's nine independent codes

that work together it's thousands of pages of building codes um it's a substantial um body of

work and that there's nine separate codes that all work together.

There's 12.

There's nine core codes. Yeah, there it is. It's all good. As part of this adoption with the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code and National Electric Code, there's 12 total, but there's nine core building codes.

I'd just like to say this is a massive body of work. I thought when you presented at the work session, I really appreciate it. I told you in the follow-up just personally, but I want to say publicly, the process that you, and then the list of people that you included in the process, we know lots of them. I was like, that's a pretty broad swath of people to weigh in on something this big. And I really appreciate it. And then I'm just continually impressed by your depth of knowledge, by your answers tonight. I was like, wow, okay. So I'm very appreciative of that. And it is a lot of code and it must be a massive ordeal. So thanks for reaching out to a lot of different people and including them and creating that. Because I think I said at the work session, it's not really our code. It's their code. So it's nice when you develop it together. It does drive up costs and that's a constant concern. but it doesn't the 2021 codes were more expensive but it does look like we met some of the eventual state standards by doing that that we would have to be updating now anyway so I do I am have I think we all share an ongoing concern about how expensive it is to live in Fort Collins and how that does also impact our climate goals with people coming and going. And I just like to also say we're not growing, just to dispel any myths. The last two or three years, our population hasn't increased, but our traffic has. And it's because of the affordability issue. So that's beside the point on here, but it's just an addition to say, notwithstanding this, I think this is

a very sound code that you have developed in conjunction.

And I'll vote yes.

24 international building code with amendments second second by pad yandy further discussion

saying none clerk please call the roll aren't yes francis yes olsen yes pad yandy yes canonico

yes pinotero yes motion passes six zero i move to adopt on first reading of ordinance number

212 2025 amending chapter 5 article 2 division 2 of the code of the city of fort collins for purpose of repealing the 2021 international energy conservation code and adopting the 2024 international energy conservation code with amendments second second by canonico for the

discussion sitting done clerk please call the roll francis yes olsen yes pat yandy yes canonico

yes piñatero yes aren't yes motion passes six to zero next up i move adoption of first reading

of Ordinance No. 213-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Residential Code and adopting the 2024 International Residential Code with amendments.

Yes. Or a second.

We have a yes from Piñatero. I mean a second. Further questions, comments, seeing on Carpenter's cultural.

Olsen? Yes. Pat Yandy? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Piñatero? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Yes. Francis? Yes. Pass the 6-0.

I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 2014-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Existing Building Code and adopting the 2024 International Existing Building Code with amendments.

Second. Seconded by Padianni for discussions. And then, clerk, please call the roll. Padianni?

Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pina Taro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen?

Yes.

Passes 6-0. Do I hear a motion?

I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 215-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code and adopting the 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code with amendments.

Second. seconded by Canonical. Is there any discussion on this spa swimming one?

No. All right. Clerk, please call the roll. Canonical? Yes. Piñataro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes. Paduyandi? Yes.

Pass to six to zero. Do I have a motion?

I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 216-2025, amending chapter 5, article 2, division 3 of the Code of City of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and adopting the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code with amendments.

Second. Seconded by Piñataro for the discussion. Sitting down, clerk, please call the roll. Piñataro? Yes.

Guitseus? Oh, sorry, Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes. Pariandi? Yes. Canonico?

Yes. Motion passes 6-0.

I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 217-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 4, the Code of the City of Fort Collins, for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Mechanical Code and adopting the 2024 International Mechanical Code with amendments.

Second. Seconded by Padjandi. To further discussion, seeing none, clerk, please call the roll. Arndt. Yes.

Francis. Yes. Olsen. Yes. Padjandi. Yes. Canonico. Yes. Pinotero? Yes.

Passes 6 to 0.

I move first reading of ordinance number 218-2025, many chapter 5, article 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Fueled Gas Code and adopting the 2024 International Fueled Gas Code with amendments.

Second. Seconded by Canonico for the discussion. Seeing none, clerk, please call the roll. Francis? Yes.

Wilson? Yes. Paduyandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pinotero? Yes. Arndt? Yes.

Motion passes 6-0.

I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 219-2025, many chapter 5, article 5, division 1 of the code of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the Colorado Plumbing Code and adopting the 2024 International Plumbing Code with amendments.

Second. Second by Pina Terro for the discussion. Seeing none, clerk, please call the roll. Olsen?

Yes.

Padigandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pina Terro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Yes. Francis?

Yes. Motion passed 6-0.

I move on first reading ordinance number 220-2025, Mending Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of adopting the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code and appendices with amendments.

Second. Seconded by Panayandi. Further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, please call the roll. Panayandi?

Yes. Canonico? Yes. Piñataro? Yes. Arndt? Yes.

Francis yes, Olson yes motion has six zero next I move first reading of ordinance number two twenty one 2025 many chapter five article three the code of city Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2020 national Electrical code adopting the 2023 national electrical code with amendments

Second second by Canonico for the discussion saying them clerk. Please call the roll canonical. Yes Pina taro. Yes aren't

yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes. Pagyandi? Yes.

Motion passes 6-0.

One more. I move adoption on first reading of ordinance number 222-2025 amending the land use code of City of Fort Collins to add wildfire resiliency landscaping requirements. Second.

Seconded by Pina Taro for discussion. sitting then please please call the vote piñatero yes aren't yes francis yes olson yes patyandi yes canonico yes uh motion passes six to zero congratulations that was unanimous that was a

big deal excuse me would you like it just a quick question because i think the questions Mayor Pro Tem asked incredibly important since this will be coming back for a second reading uh I'm gonna leave it up to you guys to decide if it goes on consent or not but it sounds like we have some things we might want to discuss so is that the plan we'll get a memo back I'm sure but yeah okay great thank you and I hope you translated my why are there so many with thank you for all the hard work so thank you again yes of course thank you okay are you guys want

a break or you want to go straight on straight ahead let's go straight into

item 30 is there a staff presentation there is if you give us just a moment to swap out the staff teams here thank you again Marcus

all right as they get set up here I am going to be turning it over to Brian

who will be, I believe, beginning our presentation.

Oh, nope, that is not correct. So Jacob Castillo is going to be beginning our presentation.

Jacob, I'm sorry. I'm so used to seeing you in the CIC room. I don't want to rob you of your chance at this table.

It's fine. Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

My name is Jacob Castillo, and I have the honor of serving as the Chief Sustainability Officer. As Kelly mentioned, I'm joined by my colleague, Brian Thal, the Energy Services Manager.

We were last in front of this body talking about building performance standards in late October,

and we're excited this evening to come back and show how we've modified the program in response to the feedback that you gave, specifically how we created a balance between an incentive-based approach and regulatory

framework that will be working in concert to deliver the desired outcomes. So with no further ado, I'm going to hand it off to Brian to get into those details. Yeah, thanks Jacob for the

extra 60 seconds of prep time. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Here to, again, first reading on the building performance standards policy. We could have added maybe 600 or 700 additional pages to the packet to really show the broad depth of policy planning that we've been through over the past two years. Hopefully sparing you of some of those details has been helpful for the short term. But I did want to speak to the level of engagement that we started with over two and a half years ago with first an internal task force of planning for a policy as well as an external task force that had community representatives contributing to the development of the policy. We've also had four work sessions together, and it's been great to get the feedback. First, on how this policy fits in with a broader holistic decarbonization and emissions reduction planning that we have. The second work session was really focused on implementation planning, communications, what exactly some of the adjustments to targets and timelines and waivers that we have.

We also talked a bit about municipal building compliance, which we do plan and has been

included in the proposed ordinance. as well as the estimated budget impacts over the compliance period for administration of the program. You know, notably, we have been focused most recently on this pilot effort, which really kind of quantified the community investment required for compliance, which has been a big question mark in what this policy means for our building owners. in the community. So again, that was a summary of the past two and a half or three years in a couple minutes, but wanting to get in mostly tonight on, again, just a little more grounding folLod by what we heard at the last work session and the subsequent work that went into including in the ordinance language that's in front of you. So this slide really shows that for the success of any regulatory program, we really want to be cognizant of economic and behavioral and infrastructure type strategies. So not just coming with a regulatory focus, but really taking a strategic regulatory approach And again, complementing that with economic, behavioral, and other strategies to have impacts on certain areas of our community. Notably, buildings, which take up two-thirds of our emissions here in Fort Collins.

What building performance standards do are require buildings to meet specific performance targets by specific dates.

and you know those performance targets are quantified as energy use intensity targets here in the staff proposal for council there's also some flexibility around what we're referring to as a standard percent reduction so you could either hit a target or reduce by a certain percentage of a baseline year. So two primary ways to come into compliance with the ordinance. And there's also built-in target adjustments and timeline adjustments, the details of which are in the code language, folLod by some waivers and off-ramps to essentially account for some of the unique circumstances that we would see in the building community that we have here.

So, let's see if I push harder.

That was that slide.

And finally, you know, there's additional grounding, but there are substantial triple bottom line benefits that we see with this policy.

It does come at the cost of investment from our building owners that we've again provided additional details on.

Across the entire community, we've seen averages of between $4 and $6 per square foot of community investment required in order to achieve compliance.

This is a snapshot of actually an updated snapshot of what the proposed covered buildings would look like in Fort Collins with approximately 730 buildings

in a recommended timeline of 2035 for compliance. And again, you'll see the standard percent

reduction language as we've previously referred to it as a cap or a maximum amount that any one

building would need to do. Essentially, that's...

In lieu of meeting a target, you could also reduce your energy use from a baseline year of 25% at a minimum for compliance.

So that's that standard percent reduction language that you also see in the quote language.

I did want to go back and talk briefly about the state-covered buildings.

there was a question I wanted to provide some clarity around state covered buildings 50,000 square feet and above are written into the code is covered

buildings if the building over 50,000 square feet is in compliance with the state requirements we'll deem them in compliance with our local requirements so I wanted to make sure that that was clear since there was you know

know a couple questions on that recently so state covered buildings included within the code language

again this represents approximately 730 covered buildings in fort collins with about two-thirds

of those already in compliance or already you know at that efficiency level where they're in compliance and would need to go through a reporting process but would likely not to need to take any upgrade type actions or substantial investments in their buildings

so this is the council feedback we heard on our october 28th work session you know we did hear a number of council members support a regulatory approach only if it's supported by incentives and

services to help compliance for our local buildings we did hear the preference to remove

multi-family buildings from our covered list of buildings and notably we did have

you know several comments related to the need to simplify the process for compliance which will take isn't necessarily reflected within the code language itself but is definitely on the radar of staff and will need to be enhanced throughout you know between you know policy consideration and notification to building owners finally a number of questions were made

around the need for municipal building investments and clarity around what that investment looks like.

In the previous work session, I did state when we still included that 5,000 to 10,000 square foot building group, our estimated cost for compliance and upgrades in the buildings and municipal buildings was about $5.3 million. dollars and that was looking at buildings 5 000 to 50 000 square feet eliminating that five to ten

thousand square foot category does reduce that significantly a lot of the buildings that

are out of compliance in our municipal fleet are in that range so it's operation services staff

who we've collaborated with have estimated that removing that five to ten thousand square foot

requirement would likely put the upgrade upgrades on the order of a million dollars now that's you know i want also want to acknowledge all the other pressures that we have around op services and building investments and operations and maintenance and you know investments in new buildings and everything else right also wanted to note that there is a cost for buildings above 50 000 square feet right but that necessary that hasn't necessarily been reflected in the materials that's been brought to council at this time so again just acknowledging that the evaluations at this point provided to council have been focused on both between 5,000 and 50,000 and 10,000 and 50,000 square feet.

So these were the actions taken as a result of the work session feedback. First, related to the timeline, we've extended the policy timeline to 2035, which again allows for more investment to be brought to the buildings in order to come into compliance. That's largely based on the likely ongoing nature of our efficiency-related incentives. It also allows more time and communication with building owners to first become aware of the policy and subsequent actions to be taken. As mentioned, we also did exclude around 300 buildings in that 5,000 to 10,000 square foot range. Again, it represented about a quarter to a third of all the buildings covered, but the outcomes are only about 5%, or 5% of the emissions-related outcomes. So by eliminating that 5,000 to 10,000 square foot, it's strategic in that we're bringing substantial resources to the buildings that we feel are really going to have the biggest impact in our community, that being over 10,000 square feet. finally again the direct feedback from council related to the exclusion of multifamily buildings and finally there was some discussion and i'm glad that i'm following marcus related to the questions on overlapping regulation with um with with new with new building code right so we did include a section of the building or section in the code that states anything built in essentially prior to the 2024 code adoption would be again the limit so to speak of of who would be eligible or who would be a covered building finally we recognize that the 2050 tax provides an opportunity that we would staff would propose bringing a budget offer or whatever the new terminology is next year for the 27 28 budget period to kick off essentially an enhanced incentive based approach by bringing you know two million dollars the first year and subsequently kind of cascading that downward. Early on, it signals action for building owners to comply early in the compliance period and take advantage early with our incentive-based approach. And again, that give or take doubles the incentives that we would bring through utilities on an annual basis for commercial buildings. So really rewarding and enhancing buildings that are taking early action in an effort to not only make progress toward 2030 goals early, but also avoid any, you know, buildings that need to do a lot of work late in the compliance period. it so finally just kind of next steps staff are recommending adoption on first reading tonight certainly continuing to refine the resources that we would bring to the community and looking into planning that you know communication plan that would roll out likely if we're still on a timeline for adoption late year sometime mid 2026 to begin court communicating with building owners so with that i'd ask if there's any questions for council

great i know we had some people here for the discussion item so let's go to the public first and i have donald bade remotely

Donald, if you'd like to state your name, and we would have two and a half minutes.

Thank you. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, please go ahead.

Okay.

My wife and I have owned a building of 20,000-plus square foot since 2011.

Our building is mixed use with tenants that have laboratory, medical service, and general office use.

We definitely do endorse a strategy of allocating tax revenues and other incentives towards voluntary participation within the commercial buildings within Fort Collins.

As owners of several commercial properties, we, in representing our tenants and in their interests, we respectfully express our firm opposition to the implementation of the BPS. we believe a penalty-based program should not be pursued for the following reasons. Mandating building improvements would impose significant financial burdens on tenants by making the triple net costs untenable. And I submitted a letter, but just to some specifics, taxes alone have caused, since 2011, a 64% rise in the triple net costs to our tenants. which, again, is very significant. Again, with this recent tax increase, we're expecting that to rise by another 20% already. So additional costs brought on by upgrading our building would potentially bring another 167% increase based on potential costs of these upgrades. So these financial pressures may result in the vacancies of our building as well as other buildings within the city and causing these businesses to want to relocate outside of Fort Collins, which, again, would reduce revenue to the city of Fort Collins. So most of our building is dedicated to laboratory space, and within that laboratory space, it has a set energy need that operating freezers and coolers and incubators and HVAC systems that are required to maintain those equipment. And as a result, the cutting of the further energy isn't practical or realistic.

and this again is the views that is

adjusted for this system is incorrectly stated for our particular building too but that's another

issue um thank you thank you so much for calling in and if you'd like to submit more in writing

We will read those.

And then I have Joe Rowan.

Madam Mayor, members of council, Joe Rowan. You know, we all feel bad about the polar bears that are swimming through open water, and we want to do something about it, right? It's a question of what are you willing to give up, and that's a question we all have to answer personally, but you as elected leaders get to impose what people will pay in order to achieve that objective. And unfortunately, I think in two and a half years, you have not yet gotten a complete picture of what this means. So I'll start with the fact that at no place along the way have we been presented with information that shows what the implementation cost of this program is going to be. So we don't even know what the city itself to monitor and stand up this program, what it's going to cost. We don't really know what it's going to cost building owners because the numbers that were presented are actually a work of fiction. In the pilot phase, they were to get contractor bids for those six projects. Well, the only one that got a bid was the city for its own work, so it didn't need a third-party contractor. The other five never materialized for one reason or another. So what they are using is historical data. And when you think about in six months, they weren't able to get a single contractor bid, and now we're going to make 430 property owners stand in line to try to get the same technical expertise, to try to get a lot of the same equipment, and a lot of the same workforce that's going to install, maintain, and run that equipment over its lifetime. Those costs aren't being considered here. And so what you've seen is how much they potentially will be asking for in terms of budget allocations. Are those numbers even close to what is going to be necessary to implement this program? And I would offer to you it's not. It's not going to come anywhere close to what it's going to cost to take some of the older building stock in our community and bring them up to current energy standards. And that can't be underestimated. I also would suggest that we really haven't even considered the legality of this program. And so that question has been glossed over. So we don't even know whether or not this is a program that legally can be implemented and what city resources we're going to have to dedicate to just the defense of it

rather than trying to meet other community objectives. So I think it's a great plan, but it's not ready.

and you as elected leaders have to be willing to stand up to that. Thanks.

Thank you. And then we had one more person, I believe, remotely. Please state your name and go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me? Yeah. Great. Hi, this is Sam Coots here at 3014 Cobb Drive. And I wanted to speak on the BPS issue as both a co-owner

I'm the owner of a small business here in Fort Collins, a tenant in Old Town, but also the vice chair of the DDA board. Although, you know, I'm here speaking on my own accord and not necessarily reflecting the DDA's views tonight. But through that, I've been quite involved through the stakeholder engagement of the BPS ordinance.

And I was pretty surprised, frankly, when I heard this was coming to council because it had been well over a year since there's been any meaningful stakeholder engagement on the project. The last time we heard from the city at the DDA board on this project was in June of 24. And it received pretty heavy criticism. And there's a lot of questions that went unanswered out of that. And so we were expecting at least an update or some answers to those questions and have not seen anything and have not been visited by the city on this. So I have a handful of issues to build on Joe's points here. The biggest one I think you need to consider is the general threat to the downtown character and vibrancy. These triple net increases will happen. That is what triple net is. It's maintenance and repairs for buildings. So it's not a question of whether it will be passed down, but it will be passed down to tenants. And tenants are already operating on razor thin margins with inflated material and labor costs, increased minimum wages, increased property taxes. This is surely going to cause vacancies, especially in downtown. And I think we all cherish the gem of downtown and would hate to see that happen. The lack of really good stakeholder engagement is troubling. And to be honest, some of the things I've read in the staff report are quite disingenuous. I see that there's, you know, it's been represented that this has been met with supports, but it's been quite the opposite of all of the different engagement sessions I've been a part of. It's never been that.

Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the time to call in. Is there anybody else in person? Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Maria Christina Moore. I am part of the Air Quality Advisory Board. I am not speaking on their behalf. I'm also part of the NOCO Latino Chamber of Commerce. I am not speaking on their behalf. I am the owner of ProCheck Inspection Services. We inspect hundreds of residential and commercial businesses throughout Northern Colorado. Over 10 years, that's thousands of places. And I've read or I've seen the BPS. I just saw the updated one. I've also read all the hesitations of the mayor and also the Chamber of Commerce objections. And I think all those are completely valid. They need to be explained and clarified. But I think there is a ton of misunderstanding about what BPS is, what it represents, who it's going to affect. I think there's so much fear over fictional numbers. I will say that we don't have specific numbers. but what I'm here today to say is that I've seen these buildings I've been in these buildings there's so much that can be done so many things that are inexpensive and easy and we have super smart building officials that can advise all of these businesses on what should be done I'm talking things like smart thermostats and weather stripping I mean we're gonna chuck out the whole BPS thing because we can't come together and work and find an agreement. I really, and people talk about like downtown businesses, all those are under 5,000 square feet. So when we're talking about just 10,000 square feet, I mean, really that's not going to be doing anything to improve our air quality, which is what we voted on by the way. But I really would like everyone to come together. I see a lot of negativity and fear. I don't want to be like our country's politicians. We need to be the spirit of Fort Collins. There's so many things that we can do. I really would like you to push forward with the BPS and not delay it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. I think go ahead first. And then, sorry.

Thank you. My name is Mark Howdischeld. I'm the current vice chair of the Air Quality Advisory Board. And I also volunteer with Fort Collins Sustainability Group and Homework Alliance and Colorado Voters for Animals and some others. But I'm not here representing any of them tonight. I'm just speaking as a citizen that's interested in BPS.

I'm a big supporter of BPS, and I attended the work session on October 28th, I believe it was, and listened to the discussion there. And what most concerned me was it seemed to me there were a lot of potential questions

that council could have asked that would make BPS much more palatable. I know there was a I don't want to call it knee-jerk reaction but it was immediately proposed to remove for example multi-family buildings and I assume that was because of affordability concerns because the one pilot program my pilot building had such a high cost

even though it was the largest building in the pilots but what wasn't discussed was the fact that two-thirds of the cost of upgrading that building was for equipment that the building owner is going to have to do regardless of BPS. So the incremental cost of BPS was not that great.

And what I would like to see is more discussion about how to make things work with affordability. I would have liked to see in council, for example, ask, you know, this looks like it could affect

affordability, is there a way to make it work differently so that it wouldn't do that? I wish the incentive program would have been brought up before multifamily buildings were

removed because it seems like those would be the ideal candidates for incentives so

that buildings, rents, or if rents went up, at least they didn't go up more than utilities

went down due to the improvements. So I just want to encourage council to be a little bit more inquisitive and curious and ask more questions to see if my personal opinion is that affordability and climate don't necessarily have to be competing with one another. There are ways to make them work together, and I think we

need to explore that a little bit more. Thanks. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Ezra Shire, District 3. I just wanted to urge you that if you are going to implement the BPS, that you do include multifamily dwellings in the BPS of all of the building types in the city. Multifamily dwellings are probably the most important to have performance standards because in most other types of buildings, the benefits of increased efficiency do go directly to the people who are paying for them. In multifamily dwellings, they do not. The people, tenants like me, who are paying their electricity and water bills every month do not have a say in the efficiency. So we are paying every month unnecessarily high bills because the owners of these properties have no incentive, absent government intervention, to increase the efficiency of those buildings. So I would urge you to please include multifamily dwellings in the BPS if you adopt it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Looks like we have somebody else.

Adam Hirshhorn, District 2.

I just wanted to thank Jacob and the sustainability staff for doing all that they did.

Everybody already knows how I feel about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

anybody else okay seeing them we'll go to council comments um emily good sure i can start with some questions um so i did have a question about uh the building was multi-use and if we do exempt apartment buildings how does that work are we just taking the square feet of the bottom or the whole building?

Right. If the building were to be mixed use and the space that is not multifamily is greater

than 10,000 square feet, then it would be subject in a covered building.

Oh, okay. Great. Thank you. And then I did also have a question that Joe Rohn brought up about the administration of the program and how we're funding it.

Yeah, that's a great question. And I realize that there was communication provided to council through a memo in September of 2024, so a long ways back, that did detail some administrative costs. And if relevant, I could dig into some previously provided administration details or modified. What I will say at a high level is that the administrative costs are largely going to be covered by the absence of the building owners participating in our incentive programs. Right. So we have an ongoing energy services budget that's healthy of about four point four million dollars.

That's been underspent in 2023 by 13 percent or 87 percent spent in 2023.

In 2024, it was only about three quarters spent.

So, again, you know, we're kind of seeing a similar market signal where there's no longer, you know, just incentives that are going to be driving participation and efficiency programs. So that's allowed us to support with what we feel at this point, no need for additional funding to be provided for BPS moving forward.

So we'd be supporting the administration of BPS using the ongoing energy services budget that I don't know the number, but it has room to support, again, in the absence of participation in our general incentive program.

So our current staffing levels would cover assisting those how many 490 buildings going through the process?

Yeah, so great question. The initial proposal did call for the addition of 0.5 FTE. And again, that was in 2024 when, you know, economic, we're in a different world. So I'd imagine going into the 27-28 budget process, not pursuing a new FTE for this program, but rather using my existing resources in the energy services group.

Okay. I think it would be helpful just in the follow-up to get the numbers that you said you had. You don't have to do it tonight, but that would be helpful. and then um i i know in the materials it kept saying off ramps there are multiple off ramps i got i don't understand the use of off ramps in a regulatory program

yeah that's that's a good question um when i'm referring to off ramps

again at a high level i'm referring to some of the waivers that are found in section 12 207

of the code language specific to occupancy or, you know, planned demolition.

Again, not having previous documentation of similar uses in a building. So again, if there's a change of use, that represents, you know, kind of a new baseline to be established. So that's kind of the type of off-ramps that I was providing.

And are those exemptions permanent or would somebody have to come back every year?

So the way the code's written, it would be every year. Every year. Okay.

And then could you just provide more information on how we would use the 2050 tax funds?

Is it a grant program? Is it a matching program? Is it first come, first serve? Like, do we pay for all of it?

What is the idea behind how we would use those funds?

Yeah, that's part art and part intentional planning and alignment with our existing incentives. So our existing incentives through utilities programs are largely based on energy use. So the more energy you save, the more you're going to get. I would argue that we should take a different approach for how we would allocate these 2050 tax dollars. But for the most part, it would be either some type of metric related to size of building or decrease in use or planned use. Again, the details for that haven't been widely

vetted over the past month. Okay, I'll be honest with you, Brian, my support tonight is based on how we are looking at the incentives base, because I understand, I agree with the regulatory approach, but I agree with the incentives approach. And without knowing how we're going to incentivize, I don't feel really comfortable with supporting BPS, because if it's like, oh, we're just going to give 10% funding, or how far does the funding go?

I don't know how feasible that it is because I think we have to provide incentives. If this is the biggest policy lever we can pull to meet our climate goals, I just believe we have to be fully invested in helping people get there.

And without knowing how we're going to incentivize people to get there, I feel really uncomfortable supporting it tonight. And I don't know how feasible it is to put something together between first and second reading.

you don't have to get some anecdotal sure um and i won't take you down too far of a path but in 2015 staff had what we called a small business grant program where we provided

kind of a tiered incentive where we provided up front five thousand dollars to buildings that are pursuing efficiency upgrades. And it didn't have a lot of strings on it. It didn't have a lot of the really firm requirements that we would want to have planned for proper use in this 2050 tax. And all of a sudden we started to see contractor bids for $5,000 replacing two light fixtures. So I think as much as we want to partner with building owners and contractors to be very intentional around how we deploy these 2050 tax dollars. It's going to take more than, you know, a month or between now and first and second reading. What I will say again to my comments, it does double the incentive budget upfront. So again, it's enabling that way. I think there's a lot more intentional design that me and my team would need to commit to before, again, ahead of second reading. So hopefully that gives a little context into the little bit of the sauce there.

Yeah, I think that's helpful. I could also see a program where if you had the bid, then the owner has to pay a percentage and we pay our percentage over time. And then, so we want them to buy in as well to the process. But I just feel uncomfortable not knowing. And that's just me because, you know, I think I I have concerns about like the early compliance piece where if you're a building owner and you're not ready to do it, then you're penalized for not being ready. It just doesn't seem very equitable to me to have that. Like if I'm ready and I can afford it, then I can do it. But if somebody who is not ready doesn't understand the process, it doesn't have the same contact or relationship with the city, they're going to delay. and I just don't think that's fair just not because of their own accord so I think I just have a lot of questions about how we're incentivizing, how we're approaching incentivizing folks and what our philosophy is around the city using the tax dollars, that's really where I'm getting hung up with supporting it because it is the biggest policy lever we can pull and also it's going to have really big impacts if people can afford it and the cost of the violation, the 70 cents, it can really add up for business owners. I had other questions, but I'll stop there. So thank you.

Chancellor Member Pinchot. Yeah. Thank you for those questions, Mayor Pro Tem. I had further questions, just one more, because most of mine were also around

the incentive program. I'm curious, and maybe you haven't thought this far yet, but if we did not

include multifamily in the requirements could they still be eligible for the incentive program

has that been discussed yeah that's a great question i i think we plan for ease of administration and communication to make these incentives available to a broader group right so not just covered buildings especially since we're excluding five to ten thousand square foot so So yes, I'd say that we'd want to ensure we could have the maximum reach possible.

And unrelated, I am curious. So it's just funny. Every time you say covered buildings, my mind immediately goes like, what buildings don't have roofs? And I know that's not what we're talking about at all, but it's just like automatically where my mind goes and I have to reset.

But I am curious for the covered buildings by the state, which are over 50,000 square feet. And maybe you kind of explain this, but if you could try in a different way, why didn't we just include buildings 10,000 to 49,999?

Yeah, that's a great question. And thanks for unlocking a new, you know, visual of uncovered buildings. You know, in short, two reasons. We want to make sure that resources that we establish and provide through technical resources and incentives all provided a similar, you know, level of service to anybody in the community. So we don't want to simply push some of, you know, 50,000 square foot businesses to state resources and say, all right, well, you know, you could go do that. And secondly, you know, again, we want to build those relationships and manage that ongoing relationship. Some of those are key accounts from a utility standpoint that are going to have ongoing questions and want to have that close communication with utility staff, utilities implementation. So, yeah, I think that's some of the main reasons.

All right. That's helpful. Thanks, Brian.

Thank you, Mayor.

Could you put up the slide on the incentives by year? Do you have that?

I'm going to try to help you get to yes tonight.

They understand me. Now you understand me and I'm leaving.

I think it's slide nine.

So we do listen to one another up here, and I wanted money early in to incentivize those to do it, but in listening to the Mayor Pro Tem, everybody, one isn't as wired in, doesn't have the help, doesn't have the knowledge, doesn't have necessarily the resources in the beginning, whatever. So that's a total of, what was that, about $6 million or something?

Yeah, that's correct. I think $6.25 million over the five-year period. Yeah. Well, why don't you think about coming back between now and second reading, and I know it's only 10 days before you go to print on two things. One, how you even that out more, even if it kicks in another million or two, we're probably not going to you know we don't want to eat up all the money but different options on evening that out because everyone um maybe the people that need to help help the most won't get until year four or five and just thought for council to consider and then i don't know why you couldn't come back with some written examples of how the incentive program is going to be legitimate for everyone including we don't no one up here wants somebody getting five thousand dollars to replace two light fixtures. So we're in agreement with you there. But some explanation between first and second reading, not having all of the numbers worked out, but I just can't believe you can't come back and before it goes to print in 10 days or something with an explanation of what a couple options of what the incentive program might be like if you want to have any chance of this passing at all.

That's fair. I think we could provide conceptual ideas.

Okay. Thank you.

I have some questions. First of all, you guys listen to this council a lot, and you've done a ton of work, so I'd very much appreciate that. This is the best iteration of EPS I've heard.

so it is seems like the biggest bang for the buck in terms of you know meeting our climate goals um and i love the way that you built in flexibility i think you know me by now it's the regulatory

piece that's tougher for me um and i um i haven't seen a presentation so i am a regulator too with the Water Quality Control Commission. So we set fines, we set fees, and, you know, we have them laid out. Of course, it makes me always queasy, but, you know, I do understand that there's times when people need to have an enforcement. Did I miss anything? Because when I asked that question once before, the answer was that the fine would be for noncompliance would be equal to or greater than the cost that it would have been to comply. and for a 10,000 square foot building that's $50,000 so is that really do we have an enforcement mechanism or because I think there's people questioning about how it impacts and I know that it will just go it'll go to the trouble bottom line but that that's sort of the system but like do we have that so that we can be clear about what that is yeah thanks for that question

And I think it's important to understand. And I'd welcome also addition from the deputy city attorney or if there's somebody from the prosecution team in the audience. But Cliff Snowden's version. Sure. Is that this is noncompliance is a civil infraction. Our municipal court has a maximum citation of $3,000. I see. What we've identified in code at this time is that we'd pursue a quarterly noncompliance period. I see what you mean, every checkup. Without reading the code. Thank you. And so if and when a building owner would engage staff, start to understand, start to pursue a plan, they would enter what we refer to as a cure period. where it would put that penalty on hold such that the next quarterly infraction wouldn't be applied. And again, subject to prosecution teams.

And you pushed that out to 2035.

Correct. And we also state that we do have, and we haven't talked about interim targets. You know, essentially an interim target, which is identified in the code, is kind of a straight line. If you need to do 25%, it's a 12% reduction. Essentially, in 2031, we want to hear from these building owners. If we haven't heard from a building owner in our communication logs and our customer relationship management software that they haven't engaged at all, that interim timeline would also trigger a noncompliance period. So there is, again, we frame that interim target as an opportunity for engagement and to build that relationship for next steps. However, it is enforceable through civil infraction.

Thank you for that very clear answer. That's great. I think it's a great use of the 2050 tax. I think because the voters said we want to go after this and if this is the biggest bang for the buck, I think it's, I would put a lot of money into that from the 2050 tax. It seems like that's what people are asking for and especially if this is where we can get the best bang. Are we treating all energy the same, gas and electric?

So gas and electric come together to form a UI, which is that metric, right? So we're combining.

Yeah. So if, yes.

Yeah. That's okay. The answer is yes.

That's okay.

KBTU. So it's all combined. That's how we measure it. A single target.

No, that's fine. So one more thing. I don't, I'm not quizzing. So I'm just, those are very, thank you for those answers. So in addition to the regulatory piece, which thank you for the, it makes me feel better.

I have two other concerns. One, I don't think these programs have gone very well where they've been implemented or attempted to be implemented.

But that's, I don't know, asking for an answer on that. It's more of a comment. And then I see in the Colorado Sun today that the PUC just finalized the plan to push natural gas out of Colorado home heating.

Oh, that's home, not commercial, I suppose, to hit 100% decarbonization.

So just when I read that headline today, it made me wonder about if we're going to be getting,

maybe we'll just be complementing some of the things the state's doing. but I wouldn't want to get, I suppose that wouldn't really be important. I mean, I do think Excel needs to make some moves, right? Because we're really talking about gas is the bigger one,

especially with PRPA going to hit 88%. I mean, I think that's what, yeah.

But I'm just wondering what the state's going to do, but we don't know.

Yeah, I think when it comes to forecasted gas prices, even forecasted electric prices and resources, there's a lot of variability there. What we do know is that efficiency does represent a cost-effective resource, right? So, well, I'll acknowledge that.

No, that's right. So the real cost is the capitalization, right? So I was wondering, are we going to do any assistance? I asked it before, and the answer was no, so I'm guessing it's no again. anything like we do with the episode. Home Loan Program where we help people recapitalize because some of the upfront costs are expensive, right? And I know Fort Collins, we wanted to electrify our police services and we didn't do it.

Yeah, that's a good question. We heard that, you know, in some comments earlier tonight too. There are several options for financing that building owners can pursue. one through the county and the Colorado Pace property has clean energy program. There's also energy performance contracting strategies. There's also private bank loans. There's also loans that building owners have access to.

Because of that, the city has taken a position to where we're not likely to stand up our own financing to support this program directly.

Unless otherwise directed by council to begin to explore.

No, I was just curious because it's just the capitalization that's expensive. Okay.

And then did we ever make any reconcile with historic preservation?

If you own a historic building and the city makes you put in single-paint windows, this would make me crazy if I was the commercial building owner.

and then the city said, no,

you have to put that window back at the single pane level. And then I had to meet my BPS. I might.

And maybe not many of the 430 buildings are historic, but maybe they are.

Yeah. We we've been in touch with historic preservation commission, You know, anything related to that certification will trump kind of the requirements that we're putting into BPS.

So I think that'd be another waiver or something.

I don't know if it's maybe maybe that's a good follow up.

OK, that's OK. I'll give you a follow up on that. OK, that's the questions I have for now. Can I go? Go ahead.

Yeah. I have a question about the workforce availability.

I was on the EPA's local government advisory committee on their lead and copper pipe rule work group.

And I know in a lot of these larger cities like Detroit, having the workforce available to do all that work quickly was problematic.

So I'm just curious what that looks like here in our community.

Yeah, that's a great question. I'd welcome other comments too. What we see in our incentive-based programs currently are contractors that are often leaning on our incentive-based programs to drive projects. So they're learning the technologies. They're coming to the trainings that we're hosting. We have a building industry scholarship initiative that's funded through the 2050 tax to build that capacity. capacity. So I think maybe also Jacob can speak to some more holistic workforce planning activities.

Yeah, we're fortunate in this community to have a really strong trade sector. And although it's strong, it's like many parts of the country still maybe under-resourced in terms of personnel. So what we look at from a labor force standpoint is we are probably short some workers in these particular fields. And I think that there's a great nexus of work that we could bring together supporting workforce development, upward mobility, job creation, these jobs that we want to see in our community that also support this program. So I think there are some investments that we can make in ongoing and continued support for some of the work that we're doing at an economic health office for our sector partnerships, particularly in these industry

verticals. That's really great to hear. Thank you. So could you remind me, is that about $11 million a year that we're looking at for climate out of the 2050 tax, I mean, total that we have?

2050 tax is about $5 million a year. So if we add in energy services budget and some other kind of standing environmental services and other parts of the organization, we're approaching

is somewhere near 1011, but that's a squishier number. But we can get more firm.

But 2050 tax is estimated to be around $5 million a year.

Okay.

And is there anything else that we are really planning on devoting that $5 million to in future years at this point in time?

Yes. So what you'll see in early 2026, let's call it Q1, is the strategic funding plan for our climate future. That's taking the bundle of activities that we can do and mapping that to the resources we have and strategically sequencing those over time. So there are a number of different investments that we're going to want to make. getting some clarity on whether or not we're investing, you know, two million, a million and a half for BPS will be material to how we then plan out some of those other resources. It's really important in the first, you know, three to five years so we know what we're dealing with. So yes, other investments related to the, I don't want to be too jargon, but the next moves in our our climate future framework. And this would be a significant portion of those resources. $2 million in year one out of a $5 million bucket is material.

Yeah. So I like Council Member Olson's idea of maybe flattening out the incentive over the years. But I'm curious if we see towards the end of, towards the deadline, those last couple years, if we do have stragglers that need extra help to get there for some of the reasons that Mayor Pro Tem mentioned, if there might be flexibility at that point to increase the incentives for future counsel?

I think we can explore, you know, the taper or buildup or the deployment of those resources over time to take into account, you know, folks who may be later adopters or for whatever,

you know, good reason are making these investments later in the compliance timeframe.

We'd be happy to explore that.

Okay. Thank you.

And then one final thing related to the mayor's question about, you know, the clean energy

targets that are going to decrease by 41%. I think that's what the clean energy targets were. Is that what?

Anyway, but that there is also the pressure that we're seeing on the grid right now from data centers, AI. Would energy efficiency help take some of that pressure off the grid as well?

Yeah, kind of an emphatic yes there. in a few ways, both at kind of the high-end resource level when it comes to resource planning with Platte River and any megawatt that we could save locally is going to replace that megawatt that we would need to resource on a wind farm in Wyoming. Also, there's really compounding benefits when it comes to transmission and distribution. When we see efficiency done right locally before electrification, we see extended cable life, extended transformer life on our distribution system such that we don't have to replace that asset nearly as frequently as we would. So I think efficiency impacts that we've talked about tonight are largely focused on building owners, building occupants, but there's really compounding benefits when it comes to

utilities, resources, and therefore minimizing that upward pressure that we would see on future

rate increases. Thanks. That's really helpful. Just one more thing I wanted to say is thank you for all the incredible work over the whole time that we've been moving this forward um really appreciate you hearing what council has to say and working through that and coming back with good

options for us thank you sorry another question came to me um i am curious if adopted as it is tonight what how far in will we know if it's working or it's not working like how many years you anticipating and and sorry before you answer that uh what kind of check-ins what you have

with council like how often and how i guess yeah uh great question so section 12 to 11 has more of just a statement of evaluation and that we'll be reporting to city council every year on progress I'd also foresee that including essentially where we are in comparison to some of my assumptions when it comes to our administration and success in deploying the incentives and technical resources that we're planning. You know, for example, we kind of have, you know, a staggered, you know, 30 building approach or 30 building in year one, 40, 50, and then kind of a downward and upward swing. So we have some milestones plans that I think we could provide a good comparison to. That being said, there's going to be fluctuations in supply chain and local impacts. and you know this economic uncertainty that we're in now could could change the plan right so uh so that being said annual evaluation compared to uh first initial and likely a modified plan great

thank you no you can go ahead i have a bunch of questions yeah me too but they're quick thanks

Mayor. So now I got to see where I was at. Okay, so I want to clarify to a couple people that we heard from that this wasn't rushed. It's been over three years actually since it began. So I just want to clarify that that the process was more than thorough. Kind of a lightning round of questions. Now the city is still going to do their, did I hear you correctly? We're still going to do our five to ten thousand square feet buildings.

No, currently, and again, the way the code is written.

Wait, we don't have to follow the code. We can do beyond the code. Right. What?

Oh, yeah, I'm talking city buildings.

So as currently written, we had proposed 10,000 and above.

Now, I'm referring to our buildings, the city buildings. Correct. Okay. 10,000 and above.

we were trying to match the compliance for city buildings with compliance for community buildings so we were asking we would do the same and I'm disagreeing I'm what I'm saying is I disagree

it's just another reason I'm not for it um but I I think we should lead by example and do the five to

10,000 square feet another thing in the future I think you should explain do a better job not assuming that you didn't, I guess, explaining why. I mean, even the military has to explain at the strategic level now

to grunt-level forces why they're doing something. I mean, that's changed in 50 years. They want to know. I don't mean in the moment, but they want to know why are we doing this

and just pound home the fact that this is the most bang for the buck and it's related to climate and everything else. There's an education component to this that I think we can just do better on, and I think it has to be continuous. this. As far as the Excel, I wouldn't necessarily take anything they say to the bank as they're going to do it. And then I don't like asking questions that I don't know the answer for very often. But in Denver and Boulder, did they exclude multifamily? No. I was hoping

that was the answer.

Let's see. So they didn't exclude multifamily. And what, you know what, did they exclude the, did they only go, what's ours, 10,000

and above now, our recommendation?

Correct. Did they do the 5,000 to 10,000?

Denver went down to 5.

How about Boulder?

I'd have to follow up on that.

That's okay.

and then instead of saying why didn't you emphasize the all the things that are available to help people at the state and federal level comply financially do you intend this point forward to emphasize that as part of the program of incentivizing this to make it real clear and guide them and what financial things are out there at the state and federal level and anything else You want to add to that, or is that a firm commitment?

Yeah, I think one great thing we're hearing from our partners in administration in Denver is that buildings are actually recovering about 40% of the total cost for compliance through state utility and other resources that are available.

So it's encouraging to hear, again, 40% of the total cost likely bought down by resources that are available. I'd love to emphasize and find the opportunity to emphasize that.

Okay, and can I just intertwine my final comments and my questions and just leave it at that then?

What you might think is the reasons that I'm not supportive of this aren't your fault, except maybe some of the explanations, because I don't support the 5,000 to 10,000 is a gray area for more. If there was compromise up here, I'd be willing to give up. But the multifamily, the more I think about it, it just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm guessing Boulder didn't exempt it. We now know Denver didn't. And there's a lot of help we could do there. And a lot of that then could even help the The people that are renting there with affordability when energy is not going to get a whole lot cheaper than it is currently. So I don't like that exemption. That wasn't staff's thing. You included that in the beginning. You included the $5,000 to $10,000. And there's another one I'm forgetting you had at $20,30. I agree with all of those in your original proposal. I could have given up one of them, and I'd kick the multifamily out to 2035, but the others, 2032 was as far as I'm willing to go. If anybody's interested in those kinds of things, kick it to 2032, add multifamily, go to 2035 on those, emphasize really up the incentive game and the clarity of that and the availability of help from the state and federal governments. but it's where we've got to go with the building it's two-thirds of our emissions i'm just looking at the energy board recommendation they disagreed with excluding multi-family buildings they wanted us to put back the five to ten thousand square feet they didn't want it kicked out to 20 35 and i agree with all of that none of that was was your doing and so i just want to thank you for

all of your hard work, although I think the explanation and the follow-through between first and second reading, I think will be critical to this.

And there's some gaps that need to be filled, but I can't support it just because I think it's kind of, to me, reduced to near meaningless if we take the actions that are before us, and I prefer something much stronger. It came back to bite me now that I was one of those that pushed for decriminalizing pretty much anything other than the truly criminal acts in the city. Because it used to say, unlike litter, I'm exaggerating slightly,

criminal act up to fine of $5,000 to $10,000 in 30 days in jail. And I asked, when have we ever done that? And that would be never in the history of the planet. So we kind of went from decriminalizing things down to civil infractions. But now the maximum civil infraction is $3,000.

Is that it? But that's where the root history of all that is, that we thought it was right to make most things civil infractions, because it would seem absurd that we were going to do something $5,000 to $10,000 a day and up to 30 days in jail, and we never intended to do any of that on most things. So that's where I'm at. I appreciate all your hard work. It's been a long go, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you bring forward on second reading.

Melanie.

Hey, thank you so much. And a lot of my questions got answered as we went along, so that's great.

Can you refresh me? And I apologize. There's been a lot of time between the slideshow and now. What was our anticipated reduction in emissions with all of the things intact, so BPS has previously presented to us versus what it would be with the three additional adjustments.

So the outcomes included in the package tonight achieve 75% of the original proposed BPS policy.

Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that. You know, I think the piece, I am really supportive of this. You know, I do hear, and I think it's really reasonable, the kinds of concerns people are bringing up with the nuts and bolts of how would we provide the incentives and some of those pieces. And I feel a real sense of urgency around climate action. I think, you know, at least I, when I ran for this office, that was one of the things I was committed to making bold action on. And, you know, there are places where I feel like I need to be really flexible around the triple bottom line and the other priorities. And hearing that this really is the most powerful lever for us to make some serious climate action, I feel like it's incumbent on me to to make bold action there. So I think the piece that I don't love that we're being flexible on, honestly, is the timeline. I see the benefits of stretching out the timeline, you know, economically and socially.

And, you know, every year there's this like compounding level of emissions and, you know, time is of the essence. And so I don't love the extended timeline. My hope was if we did front load the incentives that more people would would move quickly and get it done. And then that compounding compounding effect might be blunted a little bit. But again, I hear why we would want to have incentives all sprinkled all along. And I also think, you know, climate action is something that needs to happen soon.

So if I could change anything, and I may or may not have support for that, I would love to dial back the extension of the timelines. I'm willing to be flexible with the other pieces, the other adjustments. I would hope, though, that if we're seeing success with the first round of these, if this does go through, that we can revisit other kinds of buildings, extend it to the smaller buildings, extend it to multifamily. If we are finding that there are affordable choices or affordable options or the state funding and our incentives are really making it manageable, I'm assuming that we could revisit once we're seeing this is a rocking program. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's a great addition that we addressed, you know, in short order in work session four is that if we can build and adopt a framework now, it can be adapted and or expanded as needed in the future based on council direction.

Okay, perfect. And then I apologize. This is like a granular question with regard to one of the public comments, and you may have answered it with the conversation with Mayor Pro Tem about off-ramps. But if we do have businesses that have very unique energy needs, the gentleman who spoke about the medical facility and the lab equipment and the refrigeration, I can't imagine that that's common.

but if we do have some folks who have really unique energy needs I think at one point somebody brought up they had like a reptile they were people who are running a lot of reptile aquariums or whatever would there be specific strategies we could use to support those folks in a different way yeah thanks for

that question I'd love to follow up with with Donald who spoke during public comment related to his space that has been categorized as an office. I think per what he indicated was the county assessor's record. However, there is a pretty firm definition of a laboratory space that actually has a higher target based on the needs. So Energy Star Portfolio Manager does have those specific definitions. So I'd love the opportunity to work with him to to figure out which definition and building type he fits best.

Okay. Yeah, that sounded like a unique situation.

And actually, reptiles are in the building. They could be in an efficient building. But yeah, never mind. Throw out the reptile comment and talk to the gentleman with the laboratory.

So I think that is all. Thank you so much for your hard work.

I know, yeah, it's been years. You were very receptive to our comments.

It does sound like we've got some work between first and second.

but appreciate all our work.

And I'll just make some closing comments. Just again, if this passes, I think that it will be the best one in the state. I have no doubt about that. I think the work that's gone into this has been extraordinary. I think the flexibility and the planning that you've put into it is exemplary.

I the part I can't get over is the is the regulatory piece and I understand why I just wish we could keep this whole program and partner with the community I know that 95 percent of this this is partnering with the community and that's the part I'd like to keep I feel like it it can

be economical to save energy as energy costs increase as well it's it's the capital that goes

in. When we put heat pumps in my house, it was 30 grand and I didn't get an Epic home loan for technical reasons, I suppose. And then it broke and everything drained out, which is some of the

most noxious greenhouse gases you can get. And they said, we put it in wrong. And then they came

back and they put it in wrong again. So I'm just wondering about the technology, if it's there. We used heat pumps for eight years in Africa and they worked like a dream. We never had a problem. But I think there's just some things that I think we're not.

And that was $30,000, which is one of our values in my house is environmentalism.

So, you know, we invested in our home that way.

I'm just I just have those concerns about compliance and those sorts of things. I'm all for the incentives.

And I love 95% of this package, but I can't get over the last part.

And I also really believe in the residents of Fort Collins will pitch in. I know there's probably be some bad actors out there.

And I don't like to legislate to them, but more to the collaborative spirit, again, talking about that.

And then I had one more point that I was going to make.

So it's more of just a philosophical thing for me.

Yeah, I think if I think of my last point, I'll make it again. But I don't want you to mistake my comments for anyway. I think it's a model program.

So it's just a personal thing for me. Julie.

Yeah, thank you. I'm not quite sure how this is going to go. So I do want to say, I mean, thanks again for everyone that commented on this and has written in. I feel like the comments from the, I did not write her name down, but the woman from our natural resources board exemplifies exactly how I feel about the work you have done, which is this is a compromise. So everyone is not going to be happy 100% of all the time, all the, you know, through the whole thing. And I think that includes us up here. um i am comfortable uh passing it this evening um and

i like the long timeline because of that flexibility i think you're the slide you provided i can't remember i can't see what um slide number it is but the you know you really outlined so well like the pluses and minuses of all these different um pieces that you've brought forward and I am comfortable that we will look at it again if it's not working and this is what I love about municipal government is it doesn't isn't going to take us years and years and years just to get something passed if we see right away that oh this had unintended consequences we can change it very quickly so I hope this does pass tonight I'm not quite sure but thank you again for listening to us for all your hard work to the community for helping us get to this compromising space even though no one is probably one happy you 100% happy I appreciate all the engagement thanks for the comments from

council see none will the clerk please call oh we need a motion

All right. I move approval on first reading of ordinance number 223, 2025.

Wait, is that the right one? Hold on. It is. Okay. Sorry. 2025. Repealing Article 11, Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins pertaining to building energy and water scoring and reenacting Article 11, Chapter 12 as benchmark and building performance.

Second. It's been moved and seconded by Canonico. Further comments, questions? Will the correct use call roll? Canonico?

Yes. Pina Terrell? Yes. Arndt? No. Francis? No. Olsen? No. Pat Yandy?

Yes. That motion fails on a 3-3 tie.

Do council members have other business items to come before council

We have many but any other Okay. Any other? All right. Do you want me to make the motion? I move that City Council call a special meeting pursuant to Section 2-29 of the City Code to be held at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13, 2025, for the purposes of public comment about outgoing council members, outgoing council member comments, swearing in and seating of new council members, selection of Mayor Pro Tem, consideration of resolutions for outgoing council members, discussion and possible actions to determine the pool of applicants to be interviewed for a vacancy appointment to the District 6 Councilmember seat and possible consideration and action to adjust to the process to fill the District 6 vacancy. Second.

Conversation? No. Will the clerk please call the roll? Pina Taro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olson? Yes. Patyandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. The motion passes 6-0.

I move that City Council call a special meeting in Council Chambers pursuant to Section 2-29 of the City Council at 8.30 p.m. on January 14, 2025, or immediately following a special work session to be held at 6 p.m. for the purpose of to keep public comment on the interviewed applicants for the District 6 appointment, discussion and consideration of the applications and qualifications of the applicants, and consideration of a resolution making an appointment to fill the District 6 vacancy.

Second. Seconded by Padjandi. Comments? No.

Clerk, please call the roll. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes. Padjandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Piñatero? Yes.

Motion passes 6-0. I move that City Council go into executive session pursuant to City Charter Article 2, Section 11,

Subsection 5, and Colorado Revised Statute, Section 24-6-402, Subsection 4E.

I, for the purpose of discussion with the appropriate City staff, the City's position on new and existing water storage projects,

opportunities subject to negotiations, developing strategy for the negotiations,

and instructing negotiators and the city's position on water supply arrangements for certain properties in northeast Fort Collins that are subject to negotiations, developing strategy for those negotiations and instructing negotiators.

Is there a second? Second by Pinotero. Discussion saying none. Clerk, please call the roll.

Francis? Yes. Bolson? Yes. Pat Yandy? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Yes. Pina Taro?

Yes. Arndt? Yes. Motion passed 6-0. There will be no further business after the completion of the executive session. This meeting is adjourned at 9.51 p.m. Good night, Fort Collins.