City Council Regular Meeting — December 16, 2025

Good evening Fort Collins. The time is now 6 p.m. and I call the regular meeting of the Fort Collins City Council to order. Will you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Will the clerk please call the roll. Arndt? Here. Francis? Here. Olsen? Here. Patiandi? Here. Canonico? Here. Pina Taro? Here. Gutowski?

She is absent, and I would like to take a moment to just recognize that Councilmember Gutowski's husband has passed away. And I was waiting to make that announcement until it was public and well-known, and his wonderful service and celebration of life was today. So the entire Gutowski family is in our thoughts. I'm sure you'll join me with that. We appreciate all that have joined us, either in person or virtually. and I want to remind everyone that we're here for the same purpose, which is the future of our community, and that's something we all can agree about or care about. I ask that we be respectful and listen while people talk, and afterwards, everyone will have a chance to be heard. Will the city manager please provide a review of today's agenda?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, everyone. We do not have any changes to the published agenda, so tonight's consent calendar includes 18 items, and then we have seven discussion items planned tonight A few of those are second readings to be clear. So we have tree policy updates. We have updates to the snow and ice removal requirements We'll then have items to set the salaries for the chief judge the city manager and the city attorney And then second readings of the international codes national Electric code and wildfire resiliency code and also the 2024 international fire code

That's great. Thank you very much. There are no community reports tonight So will the staff please play the public participation video?

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 FC gov.com 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 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. At this point, we have 10 people signed up for public comment. Everyone will have three minutes.

And when the green light goes on, please state your name, roughly where you live.

When you see a yellow light, that means you have 30 seconds left. And when you see a red light, that means it's someone's else's turn to express themselves.

I have most people down here under general public comment and one under an item discussion. And so we'll start with that.

And I'll just confirm, is Jamie on the item discussion?

That's later during the item, yes. Okay, great.

Then we'll go to Heather in person.

Hi, thanks for allowing me to speak. I live just outside of the city limits, actually 0.8 miles outside of the city limits on the east side of town.

And I am here regarding the recreation fee changes that are going to take place on January 1.

On a personal note, I have utilized the recreation centers to recover from three surgeries. and I trained to do a half marathon twice and a marathon once. So obviously this is very important to me.

One of the main things that I'm kind of upset about is that they're eliminating the punch pass, so to speak, where you can buy sessions and then just swipe your card when you go in.

That's been a really crucial part of my training because not all of my training happens indoors. And as you know, a monthly pass means you can come as often as you want in the course of a month but some of us don't come that often.

Also, the senior social pass is being discontinued, which is a shame for seniors as we know.

Connecting with each other is one of the most important things that they can do. Now, I'm going to run out of time.

Some of the people who will be impacted by this are those with low income, also students who are not here all of the time, people who cross train indoors and out of doors and those that are homeless

will be utilizing often utilize the Northside Ocelain Center for showering

and those people do not have an address and you are imposing a 25% non-resident fee on all of these things because as it stated those who live outside of the city limits are not expected to provide as much tax revenue. However, I will say that those who live inside the city limits and are renting are contributing as much to the economy as those who live outside of the city limits. In no other municipality is there a non-resident fee given to those who live outside of the city. So if I wanted to go to Windsor or Wellington, I wouldn't have to pay extra. I would have to pay their regular admission fee. It seems to me that part of the rationale for this isn't necessarily monetary, but to keep certain unhoused people away from the recreation centers.

I will note that there are many other gyms in the area that will be charging less than what my price is going to increase to.

let's see the 24-hour fitness and those places range between $19 a month and $40 a month even

the rain tree recreation center is $85 a month and not to knock what we have those are also kind of upscale so thank you very much thank you next up we have Evelyn

thank you everyone hi i'm evelyn ritter i live in northwest for collins and i've been a resident here for about seven years and i'm starting a new business with jay my business partner and

we're starting a business called rica lumber and deconstruction and we are planning to take apart buildings rather than tearing them down and sell savage material that we take from those buildings what I'm asking for in here at City Council to recommend today is an amendment to the building code that is going through the second reading today and that would allow regraded lumber to be used in buildings it wouldn't require it it would just allow it and this I'm recommending this because the city of Fort Collins has put on their city council goals to make this city more affordable. And using more affordable materials will help city affordability. According to Builder, material costs usually drive 30 to 40 percent of the overall building cost of a building. Material inflation is a cited driver of those costs. And salvage materials can be as low as 50% of the cost of new materials. All of this adds up to meeting that city council goal of housing affordability in Fort Collins. In addition, it will help the city meet your sustainability goals. I love salvage wood and I'm going to work in this area because it really is the most sustainable material you have. It is inherently non-toxic. It is inherently non-emitting. It sequesters carbon. And it's also something that tradespeople are very used to working with. It's something that the workers are used to using. And it's something that is not harmful for their health. And so that's another key reason why I think this would be a huge impact. When I submit my public comment, I do also have copies if you all would like to see. You'll see had signed off by also myself, Jay, and Rob Summerfield, who is the executive director of the National Center for Craftsmanship. They use building deconstruction as a way to educate folks in the larger Fort Collins, Larimer County, Weld County area, and do job training around construction using these reclaimed materials. And them and us having a better market to sell into would be really important. So I'm asking you to please consider implementing the language that is in my submitted comment and in the paper I'll pass in the code. It would be a clear win for housing affordability and sustainability goals of the city. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Amanda.

Go ahead.

You're good.

Hi, I'm Mandy Morgan and I live at Harmony Roads Apartments in Fort Collins, Colorado,

District 2, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Ordinance 203.

And as a member of the DAB, we are asking that you put a pause on that.

As an individual with a disability myself and someone that uses a wheelchair, and I'm fully independent and do everything within the community by myself,

I just worry about being isolated all winter long if there isn't any adequate snow and ice cleanup

since it's going to be said to be only cleared if it's over two inches.

And already within the winters, oftentimes I have to call city compliance line in the first place to get bailed out of snow piles and ice,

and it causes damage to my chair. And so I'm just worried about myself as well as all the residents in my building and how that will jeopardize our independence when we don't rely on anyone else. And so I'm just asking that once again, as a member of the Disability Advisory Board,

that this be considered, that this ordinance be put on pause, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Daisy?

I am Daisy Montgomery, chair of the Disability Advisory Board, and I will be speaking on their behalf tonight. We wish to express serious concerns regarding Ordinance 203, and we urge the Council to pause this ordinance due to its significant implications for accessibility, safety, and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As proposed, Ordinance 203 allows up to two inches of snow to remain on sidewalks without removal. Notably, the staff summary for this ordinance did not include any analysis of accessibility or ADA impacts. In practice, this change would affect far more sidewalks than may be immediately apparent. Snow is extremely difficult and often impossible for wheelchair users, people using mobility devices, seniors, and others with limited mobility to traverse safely. Under this ordinance, many sidewalks may remain uncleared, effectively rendering them inaccessible for long stretches of time. May I remind you that sidewalks and curb ramps are part of the accessible route under Title II of the ADA. Importantly, public entities retain responsibility under this for accessibility even when maintenance duties are assigned to adjacent property owners. The proposed ordinance raises legitimate concerns about the city's ability to meet these obligations. Peer cities such as Boulder require snow and ice to be cleared within 24 hours for accessibility. The staff rationale for Ordinance 203 cites staffing reductions, cost savings, and the existence of private HOA snow contracts. However, there was no public outreach. oa snow contracts. However, there was no public outreach and no engagement with the disability advisory board ! or residents with disabilities, nor transit riders, nor transit riders, nor ADA experts, nor ! seniors. For these reasons, we strongly urge council to pause ! Ordinance 203. As written, it is likely to result in extended sidewalk inaccessibility throughout winter, raises substantial ADA compliance concerns, substantial ADA compliance concerns and shifts the burden of winter barriers onto residents who are least able to navigate them. A more inclusive process, one that centers accessibility, safety, and equity, would better reflect Fort Collins values and legal responsibilities. We appreciate your commitment to the well-being of all residents and urge you to ensure that winter policies do not unintentionally exclude members of our community thank you my come

good evening mayor council members and member of the public my name is mike calhoun similar to mr stave i'm an average citizen of fort collins and i live in district one and i'm sorry to hear about councilmember Gutowski's husband. I'm here tonight to recognize someone whose dedication has left a lasting mark on on the city, Kelly Olson. For more than 40 years Kelly has served on this council giving his time, his energy, and his heart to Fort Collins. That kind of commitment is extraordinary and I want to acknowledge it from my perspective as a resident who has benefited from his work. Kelly's service has always reflected a deep respect for our environment, our neighborhoods, and the values that make Fort Collins special. He has been a strong advocate for open space, for thoughtful growth, and for decisions that balance progress and stewardship. As someone who cares deeply about this city, I have appreciated the consistency of his voice and the way he has kept long-term impacts in mind. While we didn't always agree on several issues. We were always aligned on the community-first approach, that shared value, putting Fort Collins above all else, is what makes his service so meaningful. In addition to his lifelong commitment to natural areas, there are also specific projects that stand out to me as an example of Kelly's impact, the West Nile virus program, Balanced Public Health and Environmental Concerns, showing how thoughtful leadership can protect both people and nature. The Downtown FLor Project balanced aesthetic attractiveness, responsible use of resources, and the tax impact of maintaining a healthy downtown, a reminder that beauty and fiscal responsibility can coexist. And the 2050 tax measure, securing asset management funding for parks and recreation for 27 years, ensured that future generations will enjoy the same quality of life we value today. These efforts reflect the breadth of Kelly's vision, from safeguarding health to enhancing daily life to investing in the long-term strength of our community. What stands out to me most is Kelly's persistence. Meeting after meeting, year after year, he has shown up prepared and principled. He has challenged ideas, asked hard questions, and reminded us that democracy requires both passion and integrity. That kind of dedication inspires me as a citizen because it shows how much one person can contribute when they stay committed over time. So tonight, I simply want to say thanks, Kel. Thank you for the countless hours, the difficult decisions, and the example you've set. Your work has touched the lives of residents like me, and it will continue to shape Fort Collins for years to come. From one average citizen, I thank you for the extraordinary service. Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah.

Thank you very much. Adam Hirshhorn remotely? No, he's not here. Larry in person?

Hi, everyone. My name is Larry. I live on West Elizabeth near the CSU campus on District 5.

I'm a student at CSU studying ecosystem sustainability.

I'm also a senator for the Student Disability Center under the Associated Students of Colorado

State University and I'm being sworn in tonight for the Disability Advisory Board.

I'm here to talk about ordinance 203. It would make city sidewalks inaccessible to everyone but would disproportionately impact disabled citizens and residents.

It would block disabled people in our city from accessing basic needs such as work and food.

The CSU campus highly relies on walking and biking in order to get around.

Our attendance in classes is important, and disabled students would not be able to attend classes if this passes. We currently don't know how facilities management would respond to this, but this would disproportionately

impact disabled people and negatively and would be bad for everyone that lives here. Thank you.

Thank you. George Grossman.

Good evening. I'm George Grossman, Chief Leaster, Happy Luck East Tea House, and I live in District 1. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in opposition to the paid on-street parking proposal. There are now 4,411 signers to the local petition to stop paid on street parking. This is up from 4,103 just two weeks ago. Last week, I attended both the work session and the DDA board meeting. I got to hear parking's presentation twice. I would like to share a few things I've learned. It appears to me that the Economic Health Office has not been engaged so far in this project. I suggest, urge, encourage, or respectfully request that you engage them to complete a feasibility study. A feasibility study is needed to look at the impact paid on-street parking will have on sales tax revenue. I say this in light of the fact that the number of people and petition signers who say they are discouraged from coming to Old Town if paid on-street parking is implemented.

If I was a council member, I would want to know what is the impact on sales tax dollars by doing nothing versus implementing paid on-street parking and how this number was calculated.

Drew mentioned that public comments are 10 to 1 against. The decision to implement paid on-street parking will change the unique character of Old Town. Have you all discussed this? I asked because the character of Old Town wasn't discussed at all during the work session. Is the next council ready to make that choice? I respectfully request that parking be on the agenda for this next council retreat in January. And Mayor Pro Tem made an astute comment during the work session. Said who knew parking would be so complicated? There are a lot of stakeholders, and we small business owners are both against paid on-street parking, and we are willing to sit down and help solve the parking system's problems.

Lastly, I want to remind everyone to shop local and support small businesses holiday season, and I wish you all a happy and joyous holiday season.

Thank you.

Thank you. I've heard that Adam Hirschhorn has joined us remotely. Please go ahead, Adam.

Adam, if you're online, please go ahead and unmute.

No? Okay. We have one more person, Joe Dice.

Thank you guys for your indulgence. My name is Joseph Dice, a lifelong Fort Collins resident. I've come and gone, but this has been my home forever. And it's been a minute since I've been up here to talk about cannabis. I was up here fighting for it in 2009, 2010, 2012. I was out there doing the petitions, all this stuff. Well, we've been kind of quiet lately. And I've had a meeting with Councilman Gutowski and Councilman Guterro and Cecilia Good. and they told me to come back and remind the council to put this on the next work session. What's happened is back in the day when we brought it back, we made little circles on a map and said, hey, it's 200 feet from any of these uses. Here's the dots where you can have it. That was 2012. It's 2025 and Fort Collins has grown.

So everything's encroached on that. And so all the marijuana facilities, you can't move. You're landlocked. And what's happened is Loveland just passed. so all those ones that got clustered out south of town are going to get wiped out and they can't

move so they're going to be competing and it's just like imagine you guys put two mcdonald's right next door to each other and one of them is going to go away and we pay a lot in taxes they make a lot of tax revenue for the city they're they're wanted and i think that back then you know that's the idea of the harmony corridor and all this stuff was that all these big ideas that where we wanted it and I think we need to revisit that because we have some like Ace's place where Nicole's is at it's in back in an industrial park it's you know heavy construction big equipment but she's not alLod to move and I think that I told her I'd come back I know the next council doesn't sit till January I'm here for visiting and I just wanted to come and talk to the rest of you guys and let you know to put this on your agenda because it's getting ready to impact everybody tonight in Loveland they're deciding their layout and they don't have any of the similar restrictions the state removed all their restrictions the only people that kept it was the city of Fort Collins and it's because you guys were not aware we've been very quiet just making business making money but even if you go to the ones that there are you see they're right next door to each other and that's not by choice they have to be because of the old zoning rules and and I think it'd be great if we let them spread out because you know a lot of people like McDonald's but they want to go get it next to their house they don't want them all all five McDonald's right next to each other anyway that's all I really had for you guys and I appreciate you squeezing me in I just wanted to put this on your radar for the first of the year thank you so much thanks for coming

we'll give out one more try no okay that concludes public comment for tonight excuse me does anyone on council have follow-up to public comment

I do. I'll speak up. Do we have someone here for the snow and ice removal?

203. We do. I'll ask Lori. Could I ask her a clarifying question? Of course.

Lori. So would you mind addressing some of the concerns that I've brought up tonight by the DAB?

Sure, no problem. Just to clarify, the requirement to remove snow within the 24 hours remains. What we are proposing to shift is when the city steps in to abate the snow itself. We still have

the ability to do citations, all of those things, but we're trying to sort of balance practicality

with safety, which is where we're proposing the two inches.

Did you consider access? You said safety and practicality. Did you also consider accessibility?

We did, and that was where we were proposing the two inches. Typically, if there is a point where people step in to decide whether or not we are going to look at removal, like abatement action. And it ranges between one inch to three inches. Two inches seem to be a reasonable accumulation based off of the types of snow we get, the amount of sun that we get, in that most of our snow is going to be less than two inches and will be resolved within that 24 hours. So that was our consideration when we were making the proposal.

But I didn't hear the word. Taking into consideration the accessibility. Did you go to the, take the two or three to the DAB? We did not.

Okay.

Do other municipalities successfully have this regulation? I'm just. Yes, ma'am.

And in considering this, what we were trying, as I said, to balance was looking at, you know, going in and doing an abatement at a half inch of snow, which is very possible right now. Often we will go and inspect at a 24-hour period. So once the snow has happened, we have a 24-hour time period before we can go out and actually start compliance actions. We do that proactively routinely. We also take complaints. When we go out to do the inspections, we will then talk to those property owners, the adjacent property owners for the sidewalks, and let them know what their responsibilities are if they have not met them. If we cannot contact them or we don't have a response, then we get in touch with our contractor. Our contractor follows up the next day. So that's technically 48 hours. If that contractor goes out in between the time that we have inspected to the time that they go out and it's been resolved, then we still end up paying that contractor for their time that was spent driving to that location. So that was where we were trying to decide what was the appropriate timing. And, you know, we certainly understand the concerns that are being raised by the Disability Advisory Board, but we're all... the concerns that are being raised by the disability advisory board but we're also trying to balance ! and we're also trying to balance timing and you know we certainly are open to suggestions but we ! having it remain at basically any accumulation of snow right now is not ! something that we can address across the entire city

! Okay, thank you. ! Does anybody have any further follow up? ! Thank you mayor! I just wanted to thank Mike Calhoun for his kind comments!

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank Mike Calhoun for his kind comments, and it means a lot to me, Mike, coming from you, so thank you.

Yeah, I have additional questions, but I think I might wait until the item comes up about the snow removal. I just think our DAB has a unique, they have a unique level of understanding of how this is going to impact that community. And I would say also, you know, they brought up our folks, you know, our senior advisory board might also be a great group to consult with. It's raised enough doubt for me. I definitely am hearing the under-resourcing and the practicality. I am not trying to discount that. I'm hearing them requesting a pause. And I would, I'll revisit it, but I am really feeling like we need to take those voices into account. So that's that. But I also wanted to ask, I see that Marcus is here. Marcus, could you speak a little bit as to whether or not it is doable to modify the codes to include reclaimed lumber, or if that's something that's been considered? I know we're on second reading, so this might be a discussion for future building code updates, but it is an interesting idea.

Yeah, so deconstruction and lumber reuse has been a hot topic over the last few years. We've done a little bit diving into both of those topics. We provided a memo to you all in 2023 and certainly could follow up with another one regarding those processes. What I will say is that reuse of reclaimed building materials is not prohibited in current building code. It's not explicitly alLod. So generally what happens when a contractor or homeowner wants to use reuse or reclaim material in their building project is they would submit it under alternative means of compliance, which is under the discretion of the chief building official. We haven't had very many requests for that. But the importance of around reuse is that these materials have to be reassessed to ensure that they are structurally sound, meet certain requirements of building code. So the purpose and intent of that building code, and she mentioned regrading. Regrading is part of that process where they have to have a third party look at the material and ensure that it's still meeting the life safety requirements of code. So it's certainly something that we could look at, adding an amendment to the building code. But right now as building code is adopted and proposed proposed on the 24 code It doesn't prohibit it. It would be alLod if it was presented to us. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that

Marcus could you resend the memo to us? I think could you send the memo to the public commenters just so they have it as well and they know what the city did Yeah, thank you

Great Council member come on

Yeah, I'm wondering if there's someone here on staff that could address the comments about the fees at the rec centers.

Yes, Dean Klinger is here, and he can talk about that. Just as he's coming forward, Council will recall, this is something we've been talking about, both from simplifying our approach and also updating our fees to be more in alignment with others in the region. So, Dean, I'll let you give some additional detail, please.

Yeah, thanks, Kelly. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just I'm happy to give a little bit of comment around this. And also, we'd be happy to prepare a memo that might go into all of those comments because I may not have all those answers. But as Kelly said, folks that are familiar with our system know that we have over 20 different ways right now of having different kinds of passes, fractional costs, different sources of discounts. So a lot of really important work that will just make it more customer friendly to simplify passes. The consequence of that, of course, is that right now we are customized for dozens of different kinds of customers. And those different customers will have changes that may be better or worse for them. So I encourage folks to look at our website and get familiar with those new fees in general. They still are a very good value. We are, of course, subject to inflation like all expenses at the city. So they are going up for some of those reasons. there are some great changes that are aligned with values we now have free drop-in for under 18 at Northside and foothills activity where that used to be a dollar which you know was just a hassle to collect so yes generally going up for folks but we hope it's a more simplified experience and we fully acknowledge that it's not necessarily a better situation for everyone but we hope that simplification works so and would it be helpful to get a more detailed memo for Council? Okay, we're happy to do that and we'll get that done too.

Can I just ask a follow-up question? So are we getting rid of all the punch passes?

So punch passes are going away. We're going to, we would have versions of monthly, you could have a monthly pass of six month or a year. Okay. Yeah, I think a follow-up memo would

be good because I, as someone who uses a punch pass, would see the value in it. Thank you.

I will add though that when I went to the rec center in Winter Park, they asked for proof of residency and there were two different fees I just know that from personal experience so it's not uncommon I don't think I haven't been to every municipality

just anybody else more public comment follow-up okay great does anyone in

council wish to pull any consent calendar items for individual discussion If so, please provide a brief explanation.

Okay.

Seeing none, do I hear a motion?

Yes, I move to adopt the consent calendar, items 1 through 18. Second.

Did you get that? Seconded by Pat Yandy. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call it all?

Pat Yandy. Yes. Canonico. Yes. Pina Taro yes aren't yes Francis yes Wilson yes

passes six to zero council members have any comments on the consent calendar seeing none there's no no snow there are no staff reports tonight do council members have any reports okay seeing none let's see sorry sorry sorry we will now go on to the items planned for discussion. We have item 19, items related to the tree

policy. Is there staff presentation? We do not have a planned staff presentation, as this is an item on second reading, but we do have staff available to answer any questions

that Council may have. Okay, great. Would any members of the public are here to talk about the tree policy? Yes. We have Jamie remotely. Jamie, are you ready?

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you. I apologize. I had surgery yesterday and my voice is not that great. My name is Jamie Thorpe. My pronouns are she, her, and I live in District 5. I'm here representing Hartford Homes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. To begin, as we have said before, we are primarily concerned with the systems and processes the city currently uses and seeks to amend with this code update. Though we have concerns we have voiced over the new mitigation policy, we're not primarily objecting to the standards themselves. Over the last several weeks, we have held a number of meetings with City staff on the forestry code changes for the ordinances tabled in November, discussing alternatives for around five to six hours. We were able to reach agreement on ways to improve the escrow system and some other details. We are grateful for staff's time and for the chance to address issues within that system. The code changes before you this evening include those changes. That said, we were unable to reach agreement on the warranty system, with staff rejecting multiple compromise options after asking us to propose them. As you may remember, this is the area of our largest concern. Additionally, we received no clear direction on how to resolve conflicts with other department standards, and we're told that there simply isn't time to evaluate some of our other suggestions for offsetting loss of developable area. Area, excuse me. Unfortunately, this has become something of a predictable pattern with the city, and it is why Hartford's leadership is increasingly reticent to engage with processes of this sort because input is often dismissed. Input is often dismissed. Earlier today, I emailed the city leader's email address, the two alternatives rejected by staff. These were presented in a color-coded format alongside the other changes staff is proposing. I ask you to replace staff's proposed warranty with one of these two alternatives. Even with these changes, code conflicts remain and there are negative side effects that could be addressed with further work. These also need to get fixed but are by far of Lor importance than the changes we submitted this evening. Going forward, please also consider carrot-based policies instead of simply stick-based policies. The forestry codes being adopted are based on penalties and provide little incentive to landowners to help the city meet its objectives outside of avoiding new and increased pain. this bent towards an adversarial governance method is emblematic of much of our recent experiences with the city and we do not think it actually provides the most effective method to achieve beneficial outcomes thank you and please let me know if you have any questions thank you very much

is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak on this item all right um seeing none sorry um sorry i just lost my space okay um does council have any comments or questions

comes my opinion yeah thank you um i'm glad to be here for this because i had to miss these unfortunately um so thank you for all your hard work on all of the work here i have a couple questions about ordinance 172 and this is the one relating to the three-year establishment period for the trees that Jamie also spoke about. So can you remind me what the current code says?

Yes. So good evening, Mayor and Council. Again, Kedra Booth, City Forester. So the current code today says that basically the city will accept the responsibility or maintenance of the trees once they are in good condition and established. So there is no set timeline on when the city accepts those trees.

And these, are these trees on city property or tree, okay. And has it been a problem?

Like, so actually before you answer that, has it been a problem anecdotally or has it been a problem systematically if it has been a problem?

I would say both. What we've noticed and what we've heard from developers is that, and what we've seen on our end in managing these situations, is that the process is really drawn out. And it's frustrating that there is no set timeline of when the city takes over those trees. So in some cases, we're seeing five to six years of the developer replacing trees. and we based on that feedback we are trying to kind of tighten that up to make it more predictable

so in those cases even like I think one of the possibilities of what could happen say a new resident like accidentally ran over because the these trees can be kind of small right the developer would still have to replace it currently yeah so if the developer is still

building in that development and it has not reached final acceptance they are on the hook for replacing those trees until final acceptance okay thank you any other

questions from council council mayor yeah thank you um I do want to thank you for your work on that escrow and making some of these other updates and I think clarifying some of the language I had a question follow up to the memo about the ability of the department to pay I appreciate the replacement clarification but I had more questions around maintenance and you know in talking about future build out the more maintenance because my if I remember correctly from our last budget we didn't we don't have the funds to fully fund our forestry department and so we're not necessarily maintaining the trees the current the city currently is responsible for at the level that we

should be is that correct that is correct we're maintaining them in terms of for the most part in terms of the pruning and more proactive maintenance compared to other communities

but in terms of tree replacements we are behind and so I guess my question was around if we're having more trees in the right of way that we will become responsible for do we have an idea of what the budget is going to be to take on the maintenance of these trees?

I believe we sent a memo. I'd have to revisit that. I don't know if you can remember or have something to add there. Yeah, again, Dean Klingner, Community Services Director. I would just answer that question. Mayor Pro Tem is saying that the budget would have to grow proportionally

to the number of trees accepted, which is proportional to the rate and pace of development. So again, that would be in the context of a growing community where hopefully our sales tax is growing as well. So it's sort of in the context of all new infrastructure along with development has to fall into that future maintenance requirement. So it's no different than new streets that are built with development or new sewers or water lines. They all come with

a new tax base as well. Well, our current tax base isn't covering our current level of service because otherwise we'd fully conned everything. So I understand about streets and going with the rate of development, but not all communities take on right-of-way trees as their responsibility as a city. That is the responsibility in some communities for the property owners because the property owner ends up watering it, ends up taking care of it, but then we prune it. And so my concern is that as we continue to grow and we...

catch up and then the forecasted is what I would be curious about. I don't think we're going to address this tonight, but my concern is that we're having a one size fits all approach to a tree policy where I could see some trees on mountain that are, we want to designate as legacy that the city would take on. But does the city have the funding to take on all care of right away trees for the future when we can't even meet our budget now? And, and so this one size fits all policy about how we're replacing trees and when the city takes them on. I don't know if that's the best

approach. Yeah, I hear you. And one thing I would like to add is that a big reason why we've gotten so far behind in our tree replacements is because we were taking on many dead trees from new developments. So we, in the past, we were seeing around 25% mortality in these new neighborhoods and they weren't being replaced by the developments at the end of development.

Yeah, I think that's a good piece of the puzzle. I think in a follow-up memo, I'd be curious what the maintenance cost is and what the replacement, how far we're behind on both, and then what's the projection for the future based on our kind of right, our new standards for tree replacement and planting in developments.

That sounds good. Yeah. And I just want to also add that there's a reason why we committed to taking on maintenance of street trees back in the 70s. So a lot of it, of course, relates to insect and disease management. Think about being familiar with Dutch elm disease. It was wiping through our community in the late 60s and through the 70s. And if we had not, sorry, I don't know why my voice is all of a sudden froggy, but if we had not shifted or made that shift in the city taking on the maintenance, we would not have as many of our large, mature American elms that we have here today. Some of the other reasons why we took over maintenance of our street trees is really due to safety. So we do a lot more frequent proactive maintenance. That preventative maintenance really helps make sure that our urban canopy is safe for the people who are walking down the sidewalks, parking on the streets, and driving down our roads.

It's even more noticeable when we get storm damage that our canopy is a lot more resilient with that proactive maintenance.

So those are just some of the reasons why we took over maintenance of the public right-of-way trees.

I think that's helpful. I mean, I appreciate what happened in the 1970s, but after 55 years and a different community and different population than we have today, I think we do have to revisit if the city can afford to maintain all these trees. And there are other ways to achieve it through code compliance. So I think a follow-up memo would be helpful.

Yeah, and I might just add, Mayor Pro Tem, I think we can do a follow-up memo, and I'm envisioning that these are the type of conversations as we go into our budget preparation, but I think it's probably more than just a follow-up memo. It actually is part of some of those earlier finance committee and or council conversations that we'll want to have at a variety of levels.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else? Councilman Pro Tem. Yeah, thank you for the work on this. looking at the suggested changes that we did receive from Hartford Homes I just was wondering if you could address their suggestion of a one-year establishment period and why that would or would not work and then also the piece that's sticking out to me more is the responsibility

for replacing a tree that is maybe damaged by the adjacent homeowner or a landscaping company so could you speak to why we why we landed where we landed yeah I'll start and Dean if you

have more to add, please do. So as I mentioned earlier, our current process is very long and drawn out and unpredictable. It takes time to get trees established. And so when we were looking at this policy and based on that development feedback over many years, not just this year, with working them in the field and with working with landscape contractors, we knew that there was a change that needed to happen. When we looked at the data, we know that it takes a minimum of three years to get a tree established. When we compared to our existing or current policy, and we went to a three-year establishment period, we saw that there was going to be a shared shift in the cost basically, or the commitment from the developer in the city. So that's where we've settled with the three-year establishment period.

Yeah, I would just say, you know, I think some of these cases that have been brought up around, I would just use the word negligence. So like if a truck runs over a tree, a property owner runs over a tree, we're still in this situation where what we're saying is a developer is responsible for that establishment. And then that would be handed over to the city. In both cases, if a garbage truck runs over the tree, the garbage company is responsible. And so there's nothing in our code that prevents a developer from requiring a homeowner to replace a tree that they ran over or didn't water or other reasons. And that would be also true for the city as we manage trees over time. So that goes through our risk management. We can file an insurance claim. And so when you know how the damage to the tree happened, that's not a responsibility we're saying is necessarily for the developer if there's another reason. I will just acknowledge that I think one of the parts of this policy that is very tricky for whoever is maintaining the trees is that I think there's just often multi-causal mortality. So it might have been a particularly dry winter. Maybe the maintenance from the homeowner wasn't perfect. Maybe there was something about the survivability of the tree from the beginning. And that's where I would say from Kendra saying, you know, that's a three-year establishment to let those pieces play out and make sure that the infrastructure required, referring to trees and infrastructure, is in place at three years. Hope that helps.

Any further questions, counsel? Yeah, go ahead. So kind of along these lines, I'm thinking back to the two times that we built a house.

And we had a checklist and we had to turn that into the builder in a year.

And anything that wasn't right, they would make right at that end of the year.

So I'm just curious, could you talk a little bit more about why you didn't want to bring homeowners into that equation,

say after that one year period and just work with the developers instead?

Yes, thank you for that question. So a big part of the reason why we are reluctant to bring the homeowners in is that the street trees are public infrastructure that are required as a part of the development agreement.

So there's that piece.

The other piece is that there could that would also substantially increase the administrative burden on staff.

And we don't have the staff capacity to go after each homeowner on these during development. Thank you. That's helpful. Anybody else?

Yeah. Question? Question? You can do it now or after the motion. Either way.

Yeah, I'm sure.

Yeah. I was just cleaning them up. I hope I can read them now.

So thanks for being here. I just had a couple brief comments to address some of the

and I know it hasn't been worked on that whole time, but it's been worked on a good two years. I just want to clarify for those that aren't tuned into this that the process wasn't rushed at all. In fact, I've complained vociferously, actually, that it's taken so long, as some know. So we didn't rush that. And I think that's a really good question. For me, it's not strong enough and robust enough. The original direction was to strengthen our tree policies. I'm not sure we've done that. That's not considered a, please don't consider that a criticism of the staff.

They worked on this to try to hit the sweet spot for the council and the community and others, but I would have preferred more robust,

stronger tree policies, kind of a friend of the Lorax. So that's where I'm at on that. I am gonna support this tonight, But a couple other things, the predictability issue, people say they want predictability.

A lot of people do, a lot of different viewpoints, especially builders and developers. Well, we went from it could be five or six years, maybe even seven for the maintenance of the trees responsibility to a three-year mark, and then you're out. So that does increase predictability. And then the comment that the feedback was dismissed, I just disagree with that.

I mean, I know what it's like to be dismissed up here.

by a variety of entities, including the city organization.

But I'm not sure it's dismissed. They just don't agree with me after I voice my thing. So I don't think that we've dismissed people in this process.

In fact, if you look at the changes before us tonight, I wish I got that many things changed when I met with the city organization in an issue such as this.

So I don't believe people or an organization or profession was dismissed. I think they were listened to strongly. And at some point, the staff just has to recommend to us what they and their professional judgment are the best choices. And I believe people were listened to strongly.

And this is what they've come up with. And I would have preferred more and stronger and more robust.

But I will support what's before us. and I thank you everyone for your work.

Great. Any further comments, questions? Council Member Pinchot.

Yeah, I just want to say again, thank you for all the work that you've put into this. I feel like you've done exactly what Council asked you to do and I'm so appreciative. So as a reminder, this is part of a suite of seven changes, some larger than others. I too, I don't think I can support at this time ordinance 172 um i would like to maybe see it just put on a shelf for a little bit while we see how the other six play out um that is assuming 174 passes as well so again thank you um and i'm eager to see uh the differences this will make for our city even though this is years down the road because that's the way trees grow so thank you anyone else councilman punyan yeah i am going

to be supporting this tonight. As with all policy, I know there are going to potentially be some opportunities for us to catch things that need an adjustment down the line. And I think there was an enormous effort here to make compromises and to make this the best policy it can be while balancing our value for healthy, long-living trees here in Fort Collins. So I'll be supporting. I definitely hear that we want to keep an eye on how it rolls out if it does pass tonight, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning.

Sure, I'll make a comment, too. I'll support this tonight, too. You guys have been working on this tree policy since I can't remember how long the first one was, and you've had robust conversations with the community. I appreciate Jamie and other people coming in to join you in that discussion. I think people obviously have different viewpoints on where we're landing. um sometimes too we just i'm just grateful of your work thank you for the follow-up memo i'm going to support this and like any other public policy if we find it's not working we can make tweaks to it down the road but i'm appreciative and i'll support tonight

further comments councilmember canonical i will just add my thanks to everyone else's this has been great work thank you for listening to council and to the community and adjusting were needed and I'll be supporting tonight.

I'm equally grateful to the community for pitching in and helping us make public policy together. I just wanted to add that too. So do I hear a motion? Are we ready for a motion? Okay, do I hear a motion?

I move adoption second reading of ordinance number 172, 2025, amending article five, section 10 of the land use code of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of establishing a three-year establishment period for street trees.

Second. Seconded by Ponyandi. Comments or questions? Seeing none, will the court, please... Sorry, I just want to clarify.

There was an alternate version that was published, and I just want to confirm that the motion was to adopt the alternate version rather than the original first reading version.

That was my intent. Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for the clarification, just to make sure we know what we're voting on.

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll?

Canonico? Yes. Piñataro? No. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen?

Yes.

Pat Yandy?

Yes. That motion passes 5-1. Is there a motion for item, ordinance 174?

Madam Mayor, I move adoption on second reading of ordinance number 174-2025, amending Article 5, Section 10 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of enhancing tree mitigation.

Second. Second of Epiñatero. Further discussion from Council?

With the amended version based on feedback from the community.

Second again. Same second. Same second. Further comments questions from council Seeing none will the clerk please call the roll Pina Terrell. Yes aren't yes Francis. Yes Olson. Yes, but Yandy. Yes, Canonico. Yes That motion passes six to zero. Thank you for your work

We go on to item 20 ordinance 203 is there a staff presentation?

Again as a second reading we do not have a staff presentation, but we will bring up members of the team Again, as a second reading, we do not have a staff presentation, but we will bring up members of the team to answer any further questions on this.

! Thank you.

! First, we'll go to the public. If you haven't spoken on this already. ! Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak on item 203? ! Anyone online? Seeing none. ! Okay. Do council members have comments or questions? Okay. Let's see. Pariandia suffers.

I'm just going to take another crack at this because I was a little discombobulated by there being a public comment and then an item later. But I would like to see us take a pause on this. I think that we might land in the same spot. I'm hearing the logic. I also think doing that outreach to appropriate boards and commissions just to make sure that we've got policy in place that's going to keep people safe and keep that accessibility for our seniors, for our folks in the disability community. and perhaps even our transit oriented boards would make sense to talk to um i don't with the feedback we've received from community members uh who are very dependent upon our sidewalks uh being cleared i don't feel comfortable with moving forward without that feedback so

councilman printer yeah i have some questions uh as i've been thinking about this and let me know if my analogy is right. So when I think about like police officers don't necessarily pull over everyone who's going four miles per hour over the speed limit but that is not something that we decide up here. So why is this put into the code? Apologize. Do you mean originally why

was it put into the code about that ability to do that? No, I mean, because I see the code right now

just doesn't call out any, it just says when it snows, period. It doesn't matter if it's a dusting, whatever. So I guess I'm confused as like, why didn't, was it possible just to become an internal policy of, oh, you know, let's say 80% of our complaints were under an inch. And by the time we could get out there, it had melted away, and so we have wasted X amount of dollars. Like, why did it have to be put in the code? And I don't know if that's a question for you to answer or not.

So I can certainly, like, defer to others, but I would tell you that by practice, we often do have to do that in order to prioritize our resources. but I think some of the challenge ends up being sort of in an equity standpoint in that if we get a complaint about a sidewalk area and they are asking us to take action on it a half inch could potentially be something that we would have to work with and I think what our challenge has been is trying to make sure that whenever we do get complaints whenever we are doing proactive inspections, there's a clear expectation of when we will address things through abatement. Our practice has not been to go to citation, but that is always an option, which is what we would be switching to. And our citation abilities would allow us to have progressive fines. So if we have repeat offenders, we would be able to go after someone who routinely does not clean up their sidewalk. Right now, we do go through an abatement process. It becomes a lien that they have to pay. It does get drug out in a different way, but our hope is that we can try and find the balance between the citation options and the abatement options to be the most effective with the type of accumulations that we would be receiving. So, that's the reason why we're proposing to put into of the code the way we have, but discretion is always something that is alLod of our officers.

And that discretion would continue, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And so just so it is clear, I don't, I feel like we can't say it enough. It is still, you still have to remove snow within how long? 24 hours. No matter how much falls? That's correct. Okay. And that is

not changing? Absolutely not changing, but we are just going about how we would enforce that

differently okay and then if we find so just restating what you said to make sure I understand so if you find a repeat offender even let's say we have multiple snows in a row that are under two inches and complain is called in which is still how it's a complaint base isn't that correct no it is both proactive and complaint it is both okay good to know oh so what does that change if it's under two inches?

We still are going to be proactive in going out. So instead of going straight to abatement, which is that contractor-assisted removal, at that point we would go ahead and do the education, which we do regardless of whether that is an enforcement or, I'm sorry, whether it's an abatement or a citation. We will always go straight to education. But if we know that they're a repeat offender, then we would start moving into progressive enforcement with citations instead of just going to straight abatement. Okay. Do you have data on like how many, I mean,

I know every winter is different, right? But I do have data. Okay. I'd love to hear some.

Fortunately, we have pulled it recently. So some of the things just to give you an idea of where we are year to date. We currently right now have 386 abatements out of 3,532 cases.

And so what's going on in those other cases? They were removed. They took care of it. So about 10% didn't take care of it. Right. For various reasons. I'm assuming what we hear about vacations, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I'll just add my comments into, I mean, I do hear, and thank you to the Disability Advisory Board for coming on. And I do hear the concern, but I feel like the concern from who we've heard from is based on a thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong for those on the other side of this, but based on the thinking that people will not do it unless there is a threat of getting a ticket or the abatement process and so I don't think that that is the case here similar to the last item I feel like if this passes tonight and we see like ooh that maybe that didn't play out the way we expected it to we could always adjust but I am in support of this and thank you for your work thank you for the comments looks like Trisha

Yeah, thank you. So what are the citation rates right now?

Okay, so fortunately, Jay Hernandez, our senior code compliance supervisor, pulled all this for me earlier today, so I actually have all of this. So first offense starts at a $100 fine. Second offense is a $300 fine. Third offense is a $500 fine. And a fourth and subsequent offense could result in a misdemeanor citation.

Okay, so I'm kind of thinking of this like with the public nuisance ordinance that we updated. Yes. And, you know, the improvement that we saw with these nuisance properties. Right now, like how many citations a year are we issuing?

On snow abatement or snow removal? None.

None. But we would shift.

We're shifting in order for us to go directly to citation instead of abatement.

Okay. Okay, so much like Julie, I appreciate our Disability Advisory Committee board members coming here and talking tonight. I hope with future efforts that there is outreach to that board and they are consulted. Same with, which one did you mention? Seniors, active modes, other boards as well when there's a change like this. but I think this helps address some of those concerns that we have a way for enforcement still I know I wouldn't want to be getting a hundred dollar fine let alone a three hundred dollar fine or the misdemeanors but I do hope that you'll come back to council after this winter and with some information so that if we do need a shift in policy that the next council will be able to work on that Thank you. MS.

Further comments or questions? Mayor Purkin.

Yeah, I'll just echo that I think it's good to have more options to do the citation instead of just hiring somebody to have it go removed for somebody. I think that's like a last resort. So it's nice to have citation. I think it's going to help clear sidewalks. I think it sounds like there is an understanding that we were saying two inches, you don't have to remove, but your excessive clarity on this has been very helpful that we're having citation ability now when we didn't have a way to enforce that before so hopefully we'll have more immediate compliance with snow removal than our

current code allows councilmember Olsen thank you mayor this is one of those rare issues for me where it's a 51 49 I voted against it on first reading of the change I'll vote against it on the second reading as well but I think the 49 thing I understand the viewpoints of the organization and the council members that spoke. So it's one of those tough calls. But I think it's clear. I mean, I'm just going to request it unless four people object. Council Member Canonico mentioned it, but I'm going to ask for a report to go to Council at the end of the season just to get your feedback on that. And I think it'd be good if we get any more snow, and maybe it'd be a good idea, actually, after the second snow season too just to report in it it's not going to be a long report i'm sure just how did it go and some data because that's always good we all of us like data so that's what i'm

asking for and that's all i got great and um i'll weigh in um i have a very heightened sensitivity to our community with disabilities and their concerns about accessibility and i um would like

to emphasize the necessity of using our boards and commissions for feedback on policies that either may or may not affect them, but the additional communication with them

means that something like tonight wouldn't happen, right? I think if you went to them and has explained it, I'm not saying they don't understand it. I'm not interpreting that. I'm on the disability advisory board we saw all sorts of policies and ordinances and we weighed in on everything and I was the only one there not in a wheelchair

so that perspective from a wheelchair is extremely valuable in many ways in our

policies procedures ordinances that frankly I think if you haven't had that perspective it's nearly impossible to have you have to ask someone who lives that every day so I I don't feel comfortable you know I would love to vote

yes on this but I would love to know that they had a chance to hear it and I know that we made tweaks the little tiny things that made a big difference for our community an inclusive city takes accessibility equally important as the other aspects of the type of inclusive community that we're purport to be. So I would vote to delay this, but if there's not a will to do that, I'm afraid I can't support it tonight.

Council Member Canonica.

I would be supportive of delaying as well.

Okay. Do I maybe the motion could include Do I hear a motion to delay to undo that skip right to that I think we need a postpone it to a date

What we would typically do at this point is have you vote to postpone second reading to a date certain Hopefully that leaves enough time for staff to have these discussions with the boards great

Does anyone have a calendar I do?

When does the DAB meet next?

January 26th. Oh, well into snow time.

Perhaps there's a special meeting to be held or something or some additional communication. I'm not sure how that would be handled.

um i don't i don't know that i can speak on behalf of the dab right now if they would be willing to do any sort of uh special meeting to do something earlier so we could look at a february meeting date of postponing it to um recognizing that you know if we have winter weather before then we won't have the compliance uh citation tool available to us yet maybe we could make

mention to our liaison that maybe you know sometimes i know that they meet by zoom and maybe there's a willingness to in a special circumstance because i don't know yeah i would

support i would support that as and as the liaison i actually have a breakfast with the uh the chairs of that board tomorrow my guess is this is an issue of importance to them that they would love to talk about i guess procedurally my question is because this is my first time with a transition of council can you do first reading with one council and second reading with the

okay sure thank you good question the new new to me the voters have spoken and the council that meets is the council they got based on the days that you know they're sworn yeah all right good question thank you councilman Wilson yeah

I think there were other boards we mentioned though to the relating to transit and I am the senior board and if I'm using old terms for the boards forgive me but those two as well

councilman patty and my understanding too if they wanted to do a special meeting is they can do joint board meetings as well correct if they wanted to get together with an online meeting to discuss this particular policy

That's something I would suggest. Okay. I know this is a lift for staff. Yeah, give me just a second here. I just am trying to, Lori, I don't mean to put you on the spot in a public setting as we try and figure this out to assess the urgency again. It could snow next week. I'm just trying to ascertain how much we want to try and rush special meetings versus saying like we would come forward on February 7th.

So we certainly could come forward on February 17th. We still have a way to abate, you know, through the rest of the snow season. You know, as mentioned, this is primarily a resourcing concern. And but the reality is we could have no snow any, you know, by February 17th. So I think we're fine with pushing it out to February 17th. but just understanding that that means that we will continue with the process that we currently have. So it may not make a significant difference during the resourcing discussion.

Yeah, I think one thing I would just say as I think about it, and I really appreciate the guidance and feedback that we did not, you know, process this earlier with our Disability Advisory Board and a few other boards. I would prefer to give, you know, an eight-week period and have meaningful engagement with them, In case we do come out with any minor adjustments as a result of that, this would give us time to do that. And we will figure out administratively how to adapt to any budget pressures that might come up in the meantime.

Yeah, great, because we have a policy in place that's working. Okay. Council Member Canonical.

I have one more question before we move on to a motion. I am curious, like, so there is budget that can be used for abatement currently? Is that what I heard from you?

January 1st starts our new budget. So this has been a heavy snow season for us, and our abatement monies come out of also our high weeds and grass monies for abatement. So we are on the tail end of having that availability. But as I mentioned we're having a new budget year and starting on January 1 So we should be fine with being able to handle any abatements that happen

Okay, because that was going to be my next question. What are we giving up for? The ability to continue the abatement if there was any equity issues

We should be fine assuming That we don't have just a ton of storms in January. Okay, thank you

Okay, do we hear a motion?

Yes, I move to postpone second reading of ordinance number 203 2025 amending section 20-102 of the code of the city of port comms for the purpose of adjusting snow and ice removal requirements to February 17th, 2026.

Second. Seconded by Ponyandi. Further comments, questions, discussion? Seeing none. Oh, you have one? Good.

No, I just, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the flexibility. I know this is extra work for y'all and I think just it's really critical that we land on the right policy it may be what we already have um but I just appreciate you taking the extra time

okay will the clerk please call the roll

Francis yes Olson yes Pat Yandy yes Canonico yes Pinotero yes Arne yes that passes six to zero

Okay, we're on to item 21 ordinance 208 is our stop presentation

Um, so I'm gonna call up Teresa Roach who is our human resources executive

I don't believe she has a formal presentation, but we'll make a few comments

Good evening mayor and council members as you know

You're good What did I just do it's down there, okay?

Um as you know, there are three different salary ordinances that we're going to be discussing tonight One for each of your council appointed employees and I want to share two things before we move to the ordinances First I want to acknowledge the time that you spend with each of your employees There are many meetings all of you have all during the year and then very focused attention at their mid-year and annual performance review that makes a difference and I just want to state my deep appreciation for what you do second on November 25th at the end of your performance and development conversations I came in and reviewed the market analysis for each position and I listened to the highlights of your dialogues the market analyses were included in tonight's council materials after November 25th I connected with each one of you individually on all three of your employees to listen to your thoughts on the proposed salary increases for 2026 with this context my plan is to state the recommendation that I'm making for each ordinance and I'm ready to go the first one when you are thank you very much sure would any

members of the public like to speak on this item they went online seeing none to council members have comments or questions I'm just gonna compliment you and your work and your guidance and your expertise and we appreciate that and helping you know the the way the council manager model works and to make sure that we're living out the values and the intention of that.

We'll just wait.

Okay.

Okay. And help us live out

with the spirit of the council manager model. It's very important. So thank you very much.

Further comments or questions? Do I hear a motion?

So for the first ordinance, which is for the chief judge, my recommendation is no increase in 2026.

Do I hear motion?

Sorry.

Okay. I have to put the dollar amount in. Is that correct, Carrie?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.

I have to put the dollar amount in, or can I just say the percentage?

Because this ordinance is to change the code, if you're not making a change to the code, you probably will want to postpone the ordinance indefinitely and not take action. the alternative would be to keep the same number in the code and basically

have the ordinance change the code to stay the same and have the same number

do we need to put in a dollar amount yes okay thank you I move to adopt ordinance number 208 2025 the council of this city of Fort Collins submitting section 2-606 of the quote of the city of Fort Collins and setting the salary of the chief judge entering in the amount of two thousand one hundred and eighteen one hundred and forty one dollars in section two just six oh six do here a second

second second by Pai Yanni is there any further discussion seeing none will the

clerk please call the roll Olsen yes Yanni yes Canonico yes Pina Taro yes

aren't yes Francis yes that motion passes six zero we're on to one it's two 209 When members of the public like to speak on this ordinance concerning the salary of the city manager

Seeing none is there anyone online? Okay, seeing none. Do council members have any comments or questions? Seeing none do I hear a motion?

Yeah, you need Teresa. I'm sorry I'm not used to going back to you

So with the city manager, as we discussed on November 25th, the regional market has witnessed significant movement higher than in previous years. My recommendation is a 2% for a new annual salary of $337,351. Puts it slightly above the 50th percentile of the regional market and slightly under the 50th of the national peer market.

Do I hear a motion?

Yes, I move to adopt ordinance number 209-2025 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, submitting section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and setting the salary of the city manager to $3,337.351.

Second. Second by Canonical for discussion. Councilman Rolson.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to comment that I think we're very fortunate to have a very professional, dedicated and competent city manager I wish the salary in this case could be more but we're keeping in line with what the majority of other city employees are getting in 2026 I believe which is 2% for most knowing that there are some exceptions it's complicated but just want to acknowledge it's the last time I get to say this probably so I really appreciate the way you approach your job and the way you execute your job and i think again just that we're very fortunate as a community

to have you as the city manager further comes comes mom can i just want to second that um

you've been incredible to work with you have been a great leader and it shows in the organization I appreciate that your willingness to be in the trenches with everybody who works for the city. So thank you. And again, we wish it could be more than 2%.

Further comes. Council Member Ponyo.

I'm going to third the positive feedback. And I also just wanted to point out that for employees here that city manager DiMartino requested a 2% raise in lieu of requesting something higher with the reasoning of wanting to walk the walk with our organization during a tough budgetary time. And I thought that was a really classy move. And I think that's how you lead our city organization. And I just wanted to point that out to employees because I think it was a pretty Pretty awesome step as a as a professional city manager. So thanks Kelly

Anyone else Seeing none

Where we have motion no, we already read the motion clerk, please call roll. There's so much commenting out

Bye Yandy. Yes, Canonico. Yes. Pina Taro. Yes aren't

Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0. We're on to Ordinance 210.

Council Member Padiani.

Yes, thank you. I need to recuse myself for a conflict of interest with this item, so I will be back.

Thank you for that reminder. Okay. Great.

okay any members of the audience would like to comment on this seeing none anyone online seeing none council members have any questions or comments

well i'm going to go to theresa now i'm getting the hang of this one

theresa so as discussed on november 25th we're also seeing some very interesting trends in the regional market for the city attorney of the 12 other attorneys only one has longer tenure than ours my recommendation is 2% for a new annual salary of two hundred and seventy thousand six hundred and seventy six

dollars thank you comments or questions council members I just like to repeat

what I said because I believe it to be true that we're very fortunate to have professional dedicated and competent city attorney and this is my last chance to communicate that in public although I do it in private and I'm just glad that you've dedicated a large portion of your life to the city of Fort Collins and I really appreciate it and again I wish it could be more but in keeping with the two percent philosophy that's where we're at so thank you

Council member cannot my last opportunity. I will second this as well. Thank you for all the good hard work Carrie. Excuse me. City attorney and I appreciate the guidance over the years then keep doing the great work you are.

Do I hear a motion. Yes, I move to adopt on first reading of ordinance number 210 2025 amending section 2 dash 581 of the code of the city of Fort Collins and setting the salary.

of the city attorney to $270,676.

Second.

Seconded by Pina Terrell for the discussion. Saying none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pina Terrell? Yes. Barron? Yes. Francis? Yes.

Olsen?

Yes.

Motion passes 5-0 with one recused.

And we have a request for a five-minute break.

We'll see you back. Let's call it 10-740.

Welcome back, Mark Collins. We are on item 24, international codes.

So, is there a staff presentation? In keeping with the theme of second readings, there is not a presentation, but we do have Marcus Coldiron here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any members of the public like to speak on this? Seeing none, anybody online?

Is there anybody online?

No? Okay, great. Council members have any comments or questions?

Madam Mayor Pro Temp.

Yeah, I just want to thank you for the...

date is April 1st 2026 correct the date would be proposed as April 1st 2026 okay

great thank you okay thank you any other councilmember comments or questions okay we are gonna start with some lengthy motions and a pretty gonna roll right through this so do I hear a motion wait yeah okay go do we need public We already asked. Oh, sorry

I moved to adopt on second reading of ordinance number 211 2025 and then in chapter 2 article Sorry chapter 5 article 2 division 2 of the code of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International build a code and adopting the 2024 international building code with amendments with an additional amendment to add A new section 7 at the end of the ordinance to read as follows violations of the city code provision set forth above on or after April 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement second second in my opinion

taro further discussion don't swim Rosen thank you mayor this I'll only

mention this once not the 43 times of the things we have to read tonight but the I agreed with staff's original recommendation but I believe we're a team and spirit of team play and legitimate concerns and all of that in collaboration I'll I'll be supporting the motion before us and the other all

the other motions that follow okay for the discussion seeing none will the

clerk please call the roll Pat Yandy yes Canonico yes Pina Taro yes aren't yes

Francis yes Olsen yes that motion passes 6-0 we're on ordinance 212 Do I have a motion? You're out.

Nobody warned me. Oh, mic's on. Hot mic. B. B, thank you. I move to adopt second reading ordinance number 212-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code and adopting the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code with amendments with an additional amendment to add a new Section 6 at the end of the ordinance to read as follows. Violations of the City Code provisions set forth above on or after April 1, 2026 shall be subject to enforcement.

Second. Seconded by Canonico for the discussion. Seeing Donald's Court, please call the roll. Canonico? Yes.

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

Yes. Motion passes 6-0. Is there a motion for Ordinance 213?

There is. I move to adopt on second reading 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 with an additional amendment to add a new Section 6 at the end of the ordinance to read as follows. Violitions of the city code provisions set forth above on or after April 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement

Second That was moved by Padianni second by Canonico for discussion sitting down clerk please call the roll

Pina Taro yes aren't yes Francis yes Olsen yes Padianni yes Canonico yes

Motion passes six to zero do I hear a motion for 214?

I move to adopt on second reading ordinance number 214-2025 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 with an additional amendment to add a new section 6 at the end of the ordinance to read as follows. violations of the city code provisions set forth above on or after April 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement second that was moved by Canonico second

by party on the further discussion saying no will the clerk please call the

roll aren't yes Francis yes Olsen yes party on D yes Canonico yes Pina

yes motion passes six to zero i hear a motion for 215 i move to adopt on second reading ordinance

number two four fifteen fourteen or fifteen where are we oh sorry i missed one uh 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 with an additional amendment to add a new section six at the end of the ordinance to read as follows violations of the city code provisions set forth above on or after april 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement second second by francis

and moved by pina taro okay for the discussion saying none please call the roll francis yes

Olsen? Yes. Pariandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pinotero? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Motion passes

6-0. Do I hear a motion for Ordinance 216? I move

adoption on second reading of Ordinance 216-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Division 3 of the Code of the 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 with an additional amendment to add A new section six to the end of the ordinance to read as follows Follows violations of the city code provision set forth on or after April 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement

Second Second by move by Francis second by Canonico for discussion saying now clerk please call the roll Olson. Yes, howdy Andy? Yes

Canonico yes, Pinotero. Yes aren't yes Francis. Yes

motion passes 6-0 motion for 217

I move to adopt on second reading ordinance number 217 2025 amending chapter 5 article 4 of the code of the city Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2021 international mechanical code and adopting the 2024 international mechanical code with amendments with an additional amendment to add a new section 6 to the end of the ordinance to read as follows violations of the city code provision set forth on or after April 1, 2026 shall be subject to enforcement.

Second.

Moved by Olson, seconded by Padiondi. Further discussion? Seeing none, clerk, please call the roll.

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

Olson?

Yes.

The motion passes 6-0. Is there a motion for 218?

I move to adopt on second reading ordinance number 218-2025, amending Chapter 5, Article 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of revealing repealing the 2021 international fuel gas code and adopting the 2024 international fuel gas code with amendments with an additional amendment to add a new section six at the end of the ordinance to read as follows violations of the city code provisions set forth above on or after april 1st 2026 shall be subject to reinforcement second moved by paniani second

by canonico for discussion saying none clerk please call the roll canonico yes pinotero

Yep. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes. Pariyandi?

Yes. Motion passes 6-0. DeHair Motion for 219.

I move adoption on second reading of Ordinance No. 219-2025, amending 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, with an additional amendment to add a new Section 6 to the end of the ordinance. to read as follows. Violations of the city code provisions set forth above on or after April 1st, 2026 shall be subject to enforcement. Second. Moved by Canonico, seconded by Pino

Taro. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Pino Taro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olson? Yes. Padillandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes.

That motion passes 6-0. Do I hear a motion for 2020? I get the short one.

I move adoption on second reading of ordinance number 2020-2025 for the purpose of adopting the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code and Appendices with amendments. Second.

Okay, move my Pinotero, seconded by Francis for the discussion. Seeing none, please call the roll. Arne?

Yes. Francis? Yes. Olson? Yes. Paduyandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pinotero? Yes.

Motion passed six to zero to her motion for 2021. Yes, I'm going to adopt one second reading of ordinance number 221

2025 amending chapter 5 article 3 of the code of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of repealing the 2020 national electric code and Adopting the 2023 national electric code with amendments with an additional amendment to add a new section six to the end of the ordinance to read as follows Violations of the city code provisions that forth above honor after April 1st 2026 shall be subject to enforcement

Second moved by Francis second by party on D for discussion saying that will please call the roll Francis yes Olsen

Yes, patty on D. Yes, Canonico. Yes, Pina Taro. Yes aren't yes

That motion passes six zero to her motion for minutes two two two

No, we don't have a motion hold please

I'm gonna shut off on second reading of ordinance number two two two twenty twenty five amending the land use code of the city of Forkons to add wildfire resiliency landscaping requirements second

moved by Francis second by Canonical further discussion when is the adoption does this need a does this need amendment

sorry this was not in the script to add a date I was

asking our staff in the audience and Maddie tells me no amendment is needed to this one okay

thank you okay

I guess that was our discussion is there further discussion Okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Olsen? Yes. Pariandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pina Taro? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Motion passes 6-0. So, dare I second reading of 201?

So, this grip says, is there a stop presentation for this item?

There is not, so we are moving on to the International Fire Code, I believe. Once again, we are available to answer any questions.

Great. Would any members of the public like to speak on this item? Seeing none, no one online. Do council members have any comments or questions on 201? Okay. Seeing none, is there a motion for 201? Sure.

You want to do it? I'll do it. Okay. I move on second reading to approve ordinance or adopt ordinance number 201 2025 of the council of the city of Fort Collins amending chapter 9 Article 1 of the code of the city of Fort Collins for the purpose of updating local amendments to the 2024 international fire code second

Yeah, I would just like to add an amendment we amend section 5 at the end to read as follows violations of the city code provision set forth above honor after April for 2026 shall be subject to enforcement.

I accept that amendment. I do as well.

Okay, so do I. Great. So we have moved by Pariandi. Do we have a second? Second by Canonico. Further discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Pariandi? Yes. Canonico? Yes. Pinatero? Yes. Arndt? Yes. Francis? Yes. Olsen? Yes.

I passed to six to zero and that brings us to the end of that section we are now on the other business to council members any items of other business to come before council it's so please explain yourself okay seeing none wow look at that we brings us to the end of this meeting I would like to extend a hearty and happy holidays to everyone in Fort Collins and we will resume our council meetings on January 6th. So we look forward to have you come then. And until then, take care of yourselves and enjoy. And this meeting is adjourned at 7.52 p.m. Good night, Fort Collins.