HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2021 - Building Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1
Alan Cram, Chair Location:
Tim Johnson, Vice Chair This hybrid meeting will be held
Brad Massey
Katharine Penning
in person at the Colorado River
Room, 222 LaPorte Ave
Eric Richards and remotely via Zoom
Justin Robinson
Mark Teplitsky Staff Liaison:
Marcus Coldiron
Interim Chief Building Official
AGENDA
August 26, 2021
9:00 a.m.
Building Review Commission
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the
City staff liaison that conducting a hybrid hearing in person and using remote technology would be prudent.
This hybrid Building Review Commission meeting will be available in person, online via Zoom or by phone. Commission members
and members of the public who are able will attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:30 a.m.
Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 9:00 a.m.. start time.
IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Members of the public wishing to comment may appear in person at the Colorado River Room, 222 LaPorte Avenue and
comment when called upon by the Chair.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at
https://zoom.us/j/92080227997. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted
status.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that
time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 920 8022 7997. Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants
will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address
the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON, ONLINE OR BY PHONE:
Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone may:
Email comments to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to
any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure
your comments are provided to the Commission.
Packet Pg. 1
Page 2
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will
make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2021
The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the minutes from the April 29, 2021 regular
meeting of the Building Review Commission.
2. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL LIAISON SHIRLEY PEEL
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to introduce Councilmember Shirley Peel to the
Commission as the Council Liaison.
STAFF: Marcus Coldiron, Interim Chief Building Official
3. RDALE CONSTRUCTION, LLC REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSURE WITHOUT
PROVIDING REQUIRED TESTING
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Review
Commission on whether or not a license and supervisor’s certificate should be
issued to RDALE Construction, LLC and Casey Reeves without required testing.
STAFF: Sharlene Manno, Manager, Administration Services
4. M-SQUARED HOME IMPROVEMENT REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSURE
WITHOUT PROVIDING REQUIRED TESTING
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Reivew
Commission on whether or not a reinstatment should be issued to M-Squared
Home Imporvements and Marty McVicker without required testing.
STAFF: Sharlene Manno, Manager, Administration Services
5. BOARD FOLLOW-UP: PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT
CALCUATIONS
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to provide follow-up information to the March 25
presentation and receive additional feedback on the proposed changes to
Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the City
of Fort Colins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building Review
Process.
Packet Pg. 2
Page 3
Goals of this update include increasing accuracy and equity of the calculations
and encouraging water efficient designs in development. Staff will provide an
overview of the project, how the proposed calculations compare to the current
system, impacts, and opportunities for future improvements.
STAFF: Abbye Neal, Interim Water Conservation Manager
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 26, 2021
Building Review Commission
STAFF
Aubrie Brennan, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 29, 2021 BRB MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the April 29, 2021 meeting of the Building Review
Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. BRB April 29, 2021 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 4
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 1 April 29, 2021
Alan Cram, Chair
Tim Johnson, Vice Chair
Brad Massey
Katharine Penning
Eric Richards
Justin Robinson
Mark Teplitsky
Staff Liaison:
Marcus Coldiron
Interim Chief Building Official
Meeting Minutes
April 29, 2021
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held virtually on Thursday, April 29, 2021, at
9:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
Mr. Anderson read a statement regarding authorization and procedures for remote meetings.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Richards, Teplitsky
ABSENT: Robinson
STAFF: Anderson, Manno, Schmidt, Brennan, Hoffman, Schiager, Hovland, Schlam
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
[Timestamp: 9:07 a.m.]
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25, 2021 MEETING.
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the March 25, 2021 meeting. Member Richards
seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
Building Review Board
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 2 April 29, 2021
2. APPEAL OF DECISION ON 503 W MULBERRY
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Building Review Board to consider an
appeal of the Chief Building Official’s determination that 503 W. Mulberry St is
not a Duplex/Two-Family Dwelling.
Disclosure of Conflicts
None.
Staff Presentation
Rich Anderson presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet.
Board Comments on Site Visit
NO SITE VISIT
Procedural Considerations
None.
Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments
Mr. Beaner, Property Manager for Stegner Rentals, spoke on behalf of Appellant. Mr. Beaner asked
the Board to grandfather in the property as a duplex, due to decades of use as a duplex. The owner
had purchased it as a duplex from a previous owner who did the same in the 1970s. Each side of the
dwelling had a separate mailing address, and the only other evidence he had were pictures to show
the longstanding operation as a duplex. Mr. Beaner clarified he was the potential property manager,
because he could not manage an illegal property.
Staff Response
Mr. Anderson stated based on the testimony and pictures provided by the Appellant, he had concerns
with fire separation between units. Another concern was there was one electric meter, because the
City had not provided two for a duplex. Current Code required separate electric meters so tenants
could each pay their portion. From the pictures, there appeared to be new water heaters in the
basement for which no permits were issued nor for the associated piping. Mr. Anderson said it was
something the City and the owner could work on together.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Beaner had no additional comments, but again pointed to the age of the modifications to the home.
Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest
Ms. Penning asked Mr. Anderson what the process would be to get the home up to Code as duplex.
Mr. Anderson said the Zoning district in which the home was located allowed duplexes. However, the
property would have to undergo a change of use development review process to change existing use
of home to single-family attached. Ms. Penning requested information on the updates to the building
that would be required. Mr. Anderson said there was an exception to the Code for sprinklers: if they
were not required in the single-family home when it was built the City could not require the owner to
retrofit. The City would do its best to ensure fire separation without destructive inspections. Mr.
Anderson said the City would require separate electricity. He was open to modification requests and
alternative methods of compliance, and he would work with applicant but could not make promises as
to what Energy Services would require.
Member Johnson asked Mr. Anderson if there was a process for grandfathering in an existing duplex.
Mr. Anderson stated the words in the Code book were existing non-conforming or existing compliant.
The problem was the City had never acknowledged the structure as a legal duplex, so it could not be
deemed legal non-conforming.
The Board entered a brief pause due to technical issues with Zoom. Member Johnson dropped out
and rejoined the meeting, during which it was paused to allow him to re-join.
Member Anderson continued the issue was if the City treated the property as a duplex without officially
blessing it. For example, if the City had given the property two water meters or inspected a separate
kitchen, it would be a de facto duplex only lacking a Certificate of Occupancy, but that was not the case
with the property.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 3 April 29, 2021
Member Teplitsky asked if separate sewers would be required for a duplex and as to the current sewer
status of the property. Mr. Anderson replied separate sewer connections were not required because
the duplexes were not individually platted pieces of land.
Ms. Penning noted she had recently gone through the process of converting single family homes to
four-unit rental properties. It was a fairly easy process to go through with Planning. The most extensive
piece was the electrical and getting separate meters. Her opinion was the bookcase had to be gypped
in and the owner needed to find an architect to draft up the house and take it to Planning.
Chair Cram remarked that a lot of circuits were probably shared, as well as breakers. He asked about
whether the narrow, steep stairs would have to conform. Mr. Anderson said under the IRC they would
be allowed to remain in the original manner in which they were installed. The City would work with an
Applicant on life safety items. However, without a plan or proper inspection, Mr. Anderson could not
say what changes would be required.
Member Massey was in agreement with Ms. Penning. He was glad Zoning allowed for a duplex and
that City Staff would work with the owner. Since the property would be rented to separate families, it
was worth doing the extra step of basics due to some apparent egregious Code violations.
Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Beaner when the owner purchased the property, how it got to this point,
and if the goal was to rent to different families. The owner purchased the property in 2012 and hired
Stegner Property Management to run it. He was helping the owner figure out how to convert it to a
legal duplex.
Member Richards asked if drafts of floorplans would be required to legalize the duplex. Mr. Anderson
said a floorplan to determine ingress and egress, as well as basic life safety items would be required.
Member Richards asked if a lot of work would be required to get to a basic level with the wiring. Mr.
Anderson said the electrical would be a significant amount of work, which is why he brought up alternate
methods of compliance. Member Richards voiced concern over life safety issues such as fire
separation and electrical. Mr. Anderson clarified life safety part was of the process, not a 100% upgrade
but enough to ensure safety and no fire hazards.
Mr. Beaner appreciated all the feedback. Mr. Anderson was extremely grateful for the Applicant’s
approach to the situation. He recommended the Board uphold CBO’s decision not to deem 503 W
Mulberry a two-family dwelling and require the owner to submit plans to convert the property into a
duplex.
Member Teplitsky thanked Mr. Beaner for his approach. He would support alternative compliance, but
if people would be living there the building had to be up to Code, despite the historical use of the
property.
Motion
Chair closed the hearing and asked for a motion.
Member Richards moved to uphold the Chief Building Official’s decision to not approve this
property as an existing Two-Family/Duplex dwelling and require the owner to submit plans to
convert this Single-Family Dwelling to a Two-Family dwelling ensuring compliance with all City
Code requirements.
Member Penning seconded.
Board Discussion
No further discussion.
The motion passed 6-0.
[Timestamp: 9:55 a.m.]
3. EXPIRED ROOFING PERMITS
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to obtain a decision from the Board as to the
preferred action by the Building Department for contractors that have expired
roofing permits.
Staff Report
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 4 April 29, 2021
Public Input
None
Board Questions and Discussion
Member Johnson asked if those trying to come into compliance were treated differently than those in
radio silence. Ms. Manno said that was correct.
Member Penning asked if contractors did construction and did not close out paperwork or let the permit
lapse without going through construction. Mr. Hoffman stated the work had been completed and
verified. Over 600 contractors had pulled permits but not called for inspection so the City had to assume
the work had been done. Ms. Manno noted the spreadsheets in the Hearing Packet were separated
out to show exactly where each permit was in the process of being closed out. The City was targeting
the environmental waste management plan requirement that went into the Code years ago, and
contractors needed to bring their permits into compliance with Code.
Member Richards asked what a suspension entailed and how a contractor would get off suspension.
Mr. Anderson stated his intention was to suspend the contractors on the list for longer than the 45 days
allowed via City Code. The City was requesting indefinite suspension until the permits were closed out
and issued letters of completion, when the contractors would be reinstated. The City’s intention was to
work with contractors but also to provide necessary services for citizens. Member Richards asked if
revocation was harsher than suspension and required more steps for reinstatement. Mr. Anderson
agreed and noted due process is required before the Board for revocation. The Board could suspend
contractors more than 45 days, and Mr. Anderson was asking the Board to delegate that authority to
him with the idea reinstatement would occur under a certain set of circumstances.
Member Richards asked how difficult it would be for contractors to locate their receipt from disposing
of materials and obtain compliance with the waste management requirement. Mr. Hoffman noted
15,000 roofs had passed, it was just a matter of getting it done and City licensed contractors knew it
was a requirement. Mr. Anderson said Environmental Services had created a submittal process online
so there was no need to scan or send in a receipt, and Environmental Services had worked with
contractors who did not have receipts. Ms. Manno directed the Board to the outreach completed by
Mr. Anderson to roofing contractors in the Hearing Packet prior to asking for extended suspensions.
The Roofing Newsletter included a survey gizmo to upload the receipt for review and entry by the City.
Mr. Anderson explained the City had a history of roofing inspections without expiration dates as required
by Code, due to disaster response by the former CBO when two large hailstorms had occurred in quick
succession in Fort Collins. The City waited until the backlog was caught up to correct it. During disaster
mitigation, City Staff had often worked outside established rules for the benefit of the public. It was an
administrative decision rather than putting extra work on Staff to extend each individual permit. To
rectify this, City Staff automatically extended permits and reached out to the contractors at least twice
to communicate the April 30 deadline.
Member Massey disclosed his home was one of the permits in question, but it would not affect his
judgment. He had received a tag on the door saying it had been inspected so the issue was likely
waste management.
Member Teplitsky expressed concern about contractors who may have lost their receipt and asked if
there would be a path to compliance. Mr. Hoffman stated Environmental Services has a way to
calculate and complete a waste management plan without a dump ticket. Member Teplitsky expressed
concern the City was being hard on reputable roofers. Mr. Anderson stated he had positive experiences
with the ones who had reached out to him because they were not the bad actors. Any contractor that
reached out to Linda in Environmental Services had a positive resolution. The City was trying to reach
those who were ignoring requirements. Indefinite suspension would allow the City to protect the
community. Member Teplitsky acknowledged the process was necessary but questioned why
reputable guys would not schedule inspections. Mr. Anderson stated before he was with the City,
homeowners were responsible to schedule the inspection and the expiration letter was only sent to the
homeowner. The City was doubling up efforts to get the homeowner and contractor, as the permit says
“the homeowner and authorized agent”.
Chair Cram was grateful a proposed motion was provided by Staff. Member Richards commended Mr.
Anderson and Staff for their attempts to come up with viable solution. He was leaning toward allowing
suspension to encourage contractors to come in and work with the City because it would be beneficial
to the community.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 5 April 29, 2021
Member Massey asked if suspensions moved forward, what would happen to permits in process so as
not to leave homeowners in limbo. Mr. Anderson said that would require a high level of customer
service on City Staff’s part and they were willing to take it on to allow inspections to occur. It would be
hard for the City but necessary to ensure compliance.
Member Teplitsky put forward an alternative resolution, a final notice that gave contractors 30 days
until suspension because most were trying to do the right thing. Mr. Anderson said the Staff
recommendation was the Staff recommendation, but he was seeking guidance from the Board. Chair
Cram said the contractors had been notified repeatedly and if contractors were given 30 days, the
Board would be right back in the same position next month. Chair Cram felt Mr. Anderson and Staff
had gone on a limb to provide additional services to the contractors on the list.
Board Deliberation
Chair Cram asked for a motion.
Member Teplitsky made a motion to approve, and Chair Cram asked if Member Teplitsky was making
the proposed Staff motion in the report.
Member Richards asked if taxes would be charged again as a penalty. Mr. Anderson said it would be
the usual half permit fee when permits expire to allow for Staff time and customer service. Member
Richards did not like charging a fee because the contractor would be acting in good faith. Mr. Anderson
stated if the contractor contacted the City before expiration, the City would grant it free of charge. Mr.
Hoffman reminded the Board that the City reached out to contractors back in September and again in
April. He had reached out to almost everybody on the list via phone or email. Ample time had been
given. Member Richards asked if those that had reached out would be subject to the fee, and Mr.
Hoffman said no.
Member Teplitksy moved to allow City staff to address failure to complete roofing permit
requirements issued during the period from ____ to ____ in connection with significant hail
events in accordance with City Code in accordance with the following:
The Chief Building Official is authorized to suspend licenses and supervisors’
certificates and exempt registration for up to ______ days/months;
The contractor must request that the expired permit be re-issued full and pay any
applicable fees to reinstate expired permits;
Once listed permits are completed and pass inspection, contractors must submit in
writing to the Chief Building Official that they have completed all expired permits and
request that the suspension of their license and supervisor’s certificate or exempt
registration be reinstated and the Chief Building Office is authorized to terminate the
suspension and reinstate such license, certificate, or exempt registration; and
Any revocation of a license, certificate, or exempt registration must be referred to the
BRB in accordance with City Code.
Mr. Anderson stated the motion was incomplete without the blanks filled in. The above motion died for
lack of a second due to lack of completeness.
Member Teplitsky moved to allow City staff to address failure to complete roofing permit
requirements issued during the period from July 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020 in connection with
significant hail events in accordance with City Code in accordance with the following:
The Chief Building Official is authorized to suspend as of May 1, 2021 licenses and
supervisors’ certificates and exempt registration indefinitely;
The contractor must request that the expired permit be re-issued full and pay any applicable
fees to reinstate expired permits;
Once listed permits are completed and pass inspection, contractors must submit in writing
to the Chief Building Official that they have completed all expired permits and request that
the suspension of their license and supervisor’s certificate or exempt registration be
reinstated and the Chief Building Office is authorized to terminate the suspension and
reinstate such license, certificate, or exempt registration; and
Any revocation of a license, certificate, or exempt registration must be referred to the BRB
in accordance with City Code.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 6 April 29, 2021
Member Richards seconded.
The motion passed 6-0.
[Timestamp: 10:52 a.m.]
Member Richards requested a short recess. The meeting was called back to order at 11:01 am. A roll call was
taken to ensure the Board attendance had not changed; all six were present.
4. SUSPENSION OF RICHARD GRAY SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE AND CONTRACTOR LICENSE
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Item is to provide information on the actions of Richard
Gray, resulting in the Chief Building Official Suspending his supervisor
certificate and contractor license with the City of Fort Collins.
Staff Report
Rich Anderson and Jesse Schlam presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Gray gave the Applicant presentation. He had been a licensed contractor in the City for 25 years
and had worked with Houts Development for seven to eight years. He disagreed with the Staff
presentation that he was not onsite. He did not go to inspections last year because of Covid. He met
with Mr. Anderson in November and agreed to place a fence behind the property and to post No
Trespassing signs, which had been done. Erosion was on the developer. To continue a job took
money, and he could not work without being paid. Mr. Houts did not have the money to get framing
packs to the job site to complete the work. If a fence was required, the City could have told him. When
Mr. Anderson called about the license suspension, he did not know why. He wanted his name off the
permits which he could have done six months prior, but Mr. Houts kept promising financing would come
through.
City Rebuttal
Mr. Anderson directed the Board to recent photographs of the job site. There were no signs or fencing
when the photos were taken, and Staff had reported no signs. Mr. Anderson called Mr. Gray and
explained the suspension was for lack of communication and lack of supervision. The City understood
lack of financing and jobs slowing, but the main concern was lack of supervision and communication.
Mr. Gray was responsible to communicate with the Building Department and keep an eye on permit
expirations. The City regularly sent letters and notifications to contractors to help, but it was the
contractor’s responsibility to communicate and take a proactive role in construction projects. Staff
believed Mr. Gray failed to uphold his responsibilities under City Code.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Gray was sorry he did not communicate with the City because he was not good with the internet.
He thought he did not have to communicate after the November meeting when he put up the No
Trespassing signs and the fencing. The developer was responsible for erosion. He did not think it was
fair to take away his license because he framed and sided in the City under that license. He could not
work for free. He wanted Mr. Houts to speak to add supporting testimony to the rebuttal.
Mr. Houts had hired Mr. Gray as his contractor. The project was 18 units, with nine completed. There
had been two batches of permits submitted, one in late 2018 with the intention to start in 2019 and one
late 2019 with the intention to start in 2020. The project was taking an extraordinary amount of time
due to complications related to construction financing. Mr. Gray was handling traditional duties. The
communication issues started in October, three to four months into the funding crisis. Mr. Gray was
available and on call the entire time. Mr. Anderson reached out to Mr. Houts to try to create some fence
security and they agreed yellow ribboning would help as an intermediate measure until fencing could
be installed. The goal was to have fence up by October 20, but were not able to complete it until
November 10. The fencing was placed on the public sides of lot, with four No Trespassing signs that
he continued to keep in working order.
Mr. Houts hired Mr. Gray as a prime subcontractor where the scope was clear as to whom does what.
Mr. Houts could do things that did not require licensing and provide administrative support. The
administrator could provide communication without supervising. Construction was managed by Mr.
Gray, but site conditions were global. Violations were common with mud, melt, and dragout. By the
time of the serious violations, they were in in months six and seven of their funding crisis with minimal
resources, but they corrected the issues as soon as they could. They knew permits would expire in
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 7 April 29, 2021
April and they would have to reach out to Building Department to find out how to proceed. They were
working toward a solution when he received Mr. Anderson’s call about the suspended license. Before
that, it seemed they had gotten to an alternative level of compliance, and everyone was looking toward
moving forward. On April 14, when Mr. Anderson called Mr. Houts, he believed they were mostly in
compliance. He had been working with Mr. Schlam on the three unresolved items, who said the issues
needed to be resolved or escrow money would be drawn out of the account and need be replaced for
work to begin. April was a rainy and snowy month, so there was a lot of erosion created by tracking in
and out of sites. In March, all permits were active and Mr. Houts was hustling trying to get progress so
he did not believe there was a need to communicate. Mr. Gray had been quiet because work was not
taking place, not because he was indifferent. The shortcomings in the subdivision were Mr. Houts’s,
not Mr. Gray’s.
City Redirect
Member Anderson highlighted parts of Mr. Houts’s testimony. Mr. Houts admitted to acting as a
supervisor because he was supervising subcontractors by directing hiring. Mr. Gray agreed to
supervise by obtaining the permit but did not fit the definition of supervision in City Code by working for
Mr. Houts instead of the other way around. It was the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure proper
supervision of those below them, which has been an issue with Mr. Gray. Mr. Anderson had agreed to
three runs of Caution tape around the property but went a couple weeks later to find no tape. When
Mr. Anderson contacted Mr. Houts, Mr. Anderson was told it was too hard to maintain because of wind.
Maintenance of a site is the responsibility of general contractor.
Mr. Schlam said he had about 150 sites across the City, with about 60 active sites; zero other stop work
orders were issued during April but he had recently issued or would issue two NOVs. Mr. Schlam would
go straight to Mr. Houts to get an issue corrected. Typically, Mr. Schlam saw minor issues as the slow
ones, but major stuff was acted on readily. There had been close to an inch and a half of precipitation
in April, causing increased trackout; verbal communications and written communications had gone out
to a good number of contractors around the City that resulted in compliance.
Mr. Anderson directed the Board to emails included in the Hearing Packet. He was told basement slab
and framing for 4007 and 4009 Rock Creek Drive would occur January 25 and take a normal build time
of four to five months but no work had happened to date. A similar expectation was communicated for
5207 and 5209 Sunglow Court by Mr. Houts but no work had been done. Prior to this Mr. Anderson
had asked them to set reasonable expectations and this timeline was agreed upon. With both incidents,
there was no communication to Staff to explain why work had not taken place until Staff reached out to
them.
Public Input
None
Board Questions and Discussion
Member Richards asked Mr. Gray if he willingly pulled the permits understanding the responsibility and
implications under his license. He understood. He had been doing this for seven to eight years and
had overseen the electrician and the plumber. Without money what could he do? He could not use his
own money and needed to work. Member Richards asked if Mr. Gray had received other violations on
his license. Mr. Gray recalled one violation 20 years prior where a roofing ridgecap was installed in the
wrong direction but he corrected it. Member Richards asked if Mr. Gray was on site and overseeing all
the trades. Mr. Gray said that was correct and he did the framing, as well.
Ms. Manno responded to the violations on file after reviewing the City system. A stop work order was
issued January 18, 2019 for working without permits on 5218 and 5220 Sunglow. The footings and
foundations were poured without permits. That was the most recent condition notice added to Mr.
Gray’s license. His framing license had not been active since March 10, 2006. Mr. Gray stated he had
been doing work, including framing under his general contractor license. He believed the 2019 violation
was a miscommunication and got it straightened out when he talked to Russ Hovland, the Chief Building
Official at the time. Mr. Anderson also had an additional violation to discuss. Mr. Gray was made
aware by Mr. Anderson’s office that he pulled a permit in 2006 for Single Family home that was currently
expired and had not received a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Gray asked to be withdrawn as framing
contractor. Mr. Gray said the permit was pulled but the house was never built. He was the framing
contractor and Gary Mackey, the general contractor had passed away. He did not pull the permit
because he was not the general contractor. There was another expired permit from 2003 but he was
just the framer, not the general contractor.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 8 April 29, 2021
Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Anderson if Mr. Gray was the general contractor were subs supposed to
work for him and if they were working for him. Mr. Anderson could not speak to the contract between
Mr. Gray and Mr. Houts, but he directed the Board to Article V, Chapter 15 for reference on supervisor
certificate responsibility to be knowledgeable of all work on the job site. Mr. Anderson could not speak
to Mr. Gray’s presence on site, only to what Staff who visited the site reported. Member Teplitsky asked
if Mr. Gray was controlling the whole job as a general contractor. Mr. Gray said he was, controlling the
framing crew, the plumber, the electrician, and HVAC. He was on site all the time. He had never
missed an inspection until last May or June because of Covid. Mr. Houts had multiple subprime
contracts with vendors. Mr. Houts paid the bills, and Mr. Gray provided supervision and got
compensation under his contract for milestones and management of the site as a supervisor
Ms. Manno explained for each project the City of Fort Collins required a fully licensed professional to
be the onsite super listed on every permit. Mr. Gray was the licensed general contractor, as well as
holding the supervisor certificate. This required him to be fully in charge of running the projects and
available for all inspections. He was responsible to be knowledgeable on all projects put in place,
regardless of the contract between him and the developer. Member Massey asked if the general
contractor is required to hold contracts with the subs. Ms. Manno replied not necessarily, but the
supervisor must direct the subs. Mr. Anderson clarified the City did not have purview over transactions,
but the expectation of the supervisor certificate was to set the schedules, stay on top of inspections,
make sure building followed the approved plans, and ensure alterations to plans were resubmitted to
the City for approval.
Member Richards asked why Mr. Gray was not available onsite for meetings and inspections and if Mr.
Gray communicated that he was uncomfortable or unable to come to the City. Mr. Gray said he should
have communicated to the City, and he was sorry. Covid was something new and he did not know
what to expect. Member Richards asked if he had been given notification an inspection was occurring
and he was expected onsite. Mr. Gray replied he had and should have called the City. Member
Johnson asked if Mr. Gray had called in the inspections. Mr. Gray replied he had scheduled the
inspections but did not show up because he was so scared of Covid.
Member Teplitsky wanted to clarify if licensing rules were violated and how. He asked what the normal
procedures were when a general contractor was on a job and funding stopped. He asked if the site
environmental safety issues were a violation of contractor license rules and the site development plan.
Mr. Anderson replied the issues were failing to supervise as required, due to the lack of progress and
permits expiring. He agreed site element controls were part of the development agreement but if Mr.
Gray had been on site managing the projects as required by his license he would have taken corrective
action. The other issues were the project not progressing with the timeframe and lack of performance
and execution on the foundations. Another issue was expired permits, which violated Code. The
foundations were poured without a permit, which showed a pattern of behavior. Mr. Anderson
suspended the license to get the Board’s direction.
Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Houts if funding challenges were resolved and if funding improved, would
he move ahead full speed with the project. Mr. Houts stated funding issues were always slow but he
intended to build and be compliant. He respected the expertise of Mr. Gray and let him stay in his lane,
following a role list they had developed together. Mr. Houts’s participation was relatively heavy
compared to other owners and developers because of his expertise. Money was not flowing yet, but
signatures were pending. He agreed there had been a difference in Mr. Gray’s approach to erosion
control in the past versus this project, but it should not be interpreted as Mr. Gray’s management style
and intent for the site construction. Member Teplitsky said it was an active project, despite funding
issues, based on erosion control and promises made to the Building Department. He stated there was
an open permit and an ongoing project where obligations must be met. It was Mr. Gray’s responsibility
as the license holder but they were stuck. Mr. Houts responded that was exactly why they were there.
Two of the four permits were still active, and reactivating permits required a good license and payment
of half the fee. When Mr. Gray said he could not be paid, he was also referencing that they could not
pay vendors; they cannot get work they cannot pay for.
Member Johnson asked about the timeline for the early 2020 concern about open excavations and lack
of site control. Mr. Anderson said temporary efforts were made, but the project was not safed off and
work did not progress. There was a continuing followup in late 2020, where fencing and other steps
occurred, asking where the project was as far as providing a safe environment for the citizens of Fort
Collins. Safety was the requirement for the Chief Building Official and what the Board needed to be
looking at, too. At the time, there was a commitment of work commencing in late January, maybe
February. Nothing occurred, which meant safety continued to be a problem between January and the
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 9 April 29, 2021
hearing, which is why they were sitting there hearing a suspension notice. The City was trying to
resolve that issue and protect the public. He understood the financing piece, but there was a huge
public safety aspect. How the work would be paid was not the City’s concern. What was important
was a safe situation for the residents of the City. Additionally, the stormwater component should not
be minimized because there would be huge environmental regulation costs if that became problematic.
Member Johnson saw the suspension as a last resort, as evidenced by the year of correspondence
between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gray and Mr. Houts. He thought the City was reasonable in pursuing
a resolution. The situation was unfortunate on multiple levels, but he appreciated Mr. Anderson’s focus
on public safety.
Mr. Anderson stated during his conversation with Mr. Houts about Mr. Gray’s suspension, Mr. Houts
asked if the Board take it into consideration if he put fence up. Mr. Anderson said he could not predict
what the Board would do, but his personal opinion was anything would show good faith.
Member Roberts asked Mr. Anderson about the steps involved to move forward with job sites if Mr.
Gray’s license was revoked by the Board. Mr. Houts said he would need a new general contractor to
take over projects because he did not have a license. The issue was whether Mr. Gray’s license should
be revoked for failure to supervise, but he did supervise. Maybe Mr. Gray should have been more
active in communicating their challenges to the City, but that did not indicate a license revocation. They
had built almost 20 units together and had a system. When Covid hit, the system got disrupted. He
proposed securing immediately while they sorted through the permit condition. He thought it was a
case of guilt by association with a developer/owner who ran into financing challenges. They did have
the means to secure the site and the weather was improving so they could get it done quickly
Chair Cram asked Member Roberts if his question was answered. Member Roberts said no and asked
Mr. Anderson what the steps would be. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Houts would have to find another general
contractor to take over the projects.
Member Roberts asked Mr. Gray if he asked to be removed from the building permits. Mr. Gray said
he did not want to be off the permits because they had been doing it for seven to eight years. However,
if he was not getting paid, he could not stay and work.
Member Teplitsky asked whether foundations were adequately secured as of the day of the hearing.
Mr. Gray said yes, there was fence on the back side and No Trespassing signs. Member Teplitsky
asked if the City requested the properties backfilled and 360 degree fencing. Mr. Gray said he would
have done it if City asked. Member Teplitsky asked the City if the request had been honored. Mr.
Anderson said part of the request was honored, because the agreement was to install the fencing that
would be part of the permanent structure and they were supposed to frame in the floor, ceiling, and the
basement to secure the foundation which had not been done. In the email, they asked if more fencing
was requested, but the City did not request it because Staff thought things were moving forward with
the original plan. No one came back to the City to say they did not have financing. Member Teplitsky
asked if the back foundations had been backfilled. Mr. Gray responded all but where the windows for
the basement were, those had not been backfilled because he would need to buy the material for
windows to backfill.
Member Johnson asked Mr. Anderson about the process afterward if the Board suspended the license.
Mr. Anderson stated he had suspended the license for 45 days, and the Board could go with Staff’s
recommendation to revoke, the Board could take no action and the license would be immediately active
after 45 days pursuant to City Code or the Board could make other recommendations as they see fit.
Member Johnson asked if a revocation would require new application for a new supervisor certificate
or if it was gone forever. Ms. Manno stated she would have Mr. Gray go before the Board to determine
if a new license and supervisor certificate could be issued.
Member Teplitsky recommended continuing with suspension until Mr. Houts confirms the financing is
100 percent in place, Mr. Gray was being paid to fulfill all his duties, and the site was in complete
compliance, but not to revoke. Member Johnson commented he was concerned that would intermingle
the City with the financing, which did not seem right, although the financing was part of the problem.
Member Teplitsky said that was right, but perhaps a testimony that everything was moving forward, but
the financing was a big part of that. Member Johnson understood Member Teplitsky’s sentiment but
was concerned. Chair Cram agreed but the Board could not get involved in their issue of financing,
and he did not see dragging this out.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 10 April 29, 2021
Board Deliberation
Chair Cram moved to revoke Mr. Gray’s Supervisor Certicate and Contractor’s License with the
City of Fort Collins and from this date forward Mr. Gray, Gray’s Construction or any company
associated with Mr. Richard Gray are hereby prohibited from contracting in the City of Fort
Collins. Additionally, I would like to add that all permits associated with Mr. Richard Gray’s
Supervisor Certificate and Contractors License are Revoked and will need to be resubmitted by
the Company or person holding the proper license with the City of Fort Collins to perform the
work.
Member Richards seconded.
Member Massey expressed concern about safety and how to ensure it. He understood the financing
piece but asked if it was reasonable to expect to Mr. Gray spend his own dollars to ensure safety. He
had been put in a difficult position. Mr. Massey asked the other members of the Board who were
contractors how they would respond. Chair Cram said there were other avenues to get the sites secure.
Bering the contractor of record, if someone was injured out there, Mr. Gray would be responsible.
Member Massey understood, but asked if the expectation would be to expend your own dollars and
physical labor to put the fence up. Member Teplitsky says it was reasonable because regardless of
payment, Contractors have responsibility for safety and environmental precautions. He would do that
first and deal with payment and his client later. Member Johnson said there was precedent that
contractors had to secure the site and leave it in good working order, and the cost would be on the
owner. In this instance had Mr. Gray gone to the City in March of 2020 or late 2019 and asked to be
removed when funding stopped, it would have been different scenario. He waited until it was a problem
to make that request. He acknowledged Mr. Anderson only had so many tools to ensure safety and
compliance.
Member Massey said there had been lack of supervision to some extent, but revocation seemed a bit
too far. He asked if the Board allowed the 45 day suspension to continue, could Mr. Gray use the time
to remedy the problems, then the Board could revisit the issue if the work had not been done or if Mr.
Gray could not work during the time. Chair Cram pointed out Mr. Gray did not need an additional 45
days because he had made no effort made to secure the site over a long time. The relationship needed
to be terminated so the developer could re-start with someone else and file for bankruptcy or whatever
he needed to do. If revocation was put off for another month, the Board would be at the same point
with Mr. Gray.
Member Massey was worried Mr. Gray was the scapegoat and Mr. Houts was the financially
responsible individual that was not getting the punishment he deserved. He knew the Board did not
have any purview over that, and Chair Cram agreed. Member Teplitsky said the relationship between
the developer and the contractor was very messy. He agreed with Member Massey it would be ideal if
there was a mechanism where Mr. Gray would lose his right to work on this project but could do work
on others in the City. He did not see violations worthy of a revocation, but he agreed with Chair Cram
that something needed to change on this project.
Mr. Anderson stated the City’s goal was to ensure life safety, not hinder Mr. Gray from earning a living.
He only had so many tools and he would take any direction from the Board.
Member Richards asked if the Board could remove Mr. Gray from the permit without revoking his
license. Mr. Anderson replied that Mr. Gray would have to formally submit that in writing to the Building
Department, because he had only made a verbal request. The Building Department would process
that if received. Member Richards would be in favor of that action because he felt that Mr. Gray was
not ultimately at fault.
The motion failed 5-2.
At 12:59 pm Member Teplitsky left the meeting, but quorum remained.
Chair Cram asked who would put up fencing if the license was revoked. Ms. Schmidt asked if Mr. Gray
would not be able to work anywhere in Fort Collins, and Mr. Anderson responded he could not during
a suspension.
Chair Cram stated Mr. Gray could work during his suspension. He could get hired as a framer under a
licensed person and still have an income. Mr. Anderson said that was correct, the Board would only
be suspending D his license. Ms. Manno researched in the City system and clarified Mr. Gray only had
a D license, as his framing license had expired in 2006.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 11 April 29, 2021
Member Richards asked if fencing could still be put up even if Mr. Gray’s license was suspended
because it did not require inspection. Mr. Anderson said that was the case.
Member Massey made a motion to suspend for an additional 45 days Mr. Gray’s Supervisor
Certificate and Contractor’s License with the City of Fort Collins based on the facts, evidence
and testimony at this hearing and set forth Staff Report included in the Agenda. During this
suspension period, Mr. Gray, Gray’s Construction and any company associated with Mr.
Richard Gray are hereby prohibited from contracting in the City of Fort Collins.
Furthermore, during this period of suspension the construction sites shall be secured in an
approved manner acceptable to the Building Official. Failure to comply with these provisions
can result in additional disciplinary actions by the Building Official and the Building Review
Board.
Member Penning seconded. The motion passed, 5-0.
[Timestamp: 1:10 p.m.]
5. ADOPTION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY OF CODES
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Item is to discuss and determine the timeline for review
and adoption of the 2021 International Family of Codes.
Staff Report
Mr. Anderson presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet.
Public Input
None
Board Questions and Discussion
Chair asked about the timeframe for code adoption. Mr. Anderson said it was in the packet.
Board Deliberation
Member Johnson moved to approve the proposed code adoption process as discussed.
Member Roberts seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
[Timestamp: 1:14 p.m.]
OTHER BUSINESS
o Discussion of alternate BRB Hearing Dates and Times
Continued to next meeting at suggestion of Chair
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.
Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on
_________________________________ ______________________________
TBD, Interim Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 26, 2021
Building Review Commission
STAFF
Sharlene Manno – Manager, Administration Services
SUBJECT
RDALE CONSTRUCTION, LLC REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSURE WITHOUT PROVIDING
REQUIRED TESTING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Review Commission on whether or not a
license and supervisor’s certificate should be issued to RDALE Construction, LLC and Casey Reeves without
required testing.
BACKGROUND
RDALE Construction, LLC is requesting that they be granted a license and supervisor’s certificate without
completing the required International Code Council (ICC) testing. The testing required for a Class C2(DR) would
be a ICC National Standard Class B (G12).
RDALE Construction, LLC has been asked to complete carports at the Governor’s Park Apartments. Originally,
RDALE Construction, LLC requested a Class MM contractor’s license and supervisor’s certificate with an exam
waiver. To complete this project the company would need to acquire a Class C2(DR), limited to carports. This
license classification requires a passing Class B National Standard General Contractor’s examination to be
granted by the City of Fort Collins.
To be granted a permit to complete these steel structure carports RDALE Construction, LLC will need to be
licensed with a supervisor’s certificate at a Class C2(DR) Limited level. Under code section 15-160, this project
is not associated with a single-family dewllings but rather a multi-unit dwelling, thus not qualifing RDALE
Construction, LLC for a stand alone Class MM license and supervisor’s certificate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendations are as follows:
1. The Commission may choose to approve Mr. Reeves’ request for a license and supervisor’s certificate
without required testing.
2. The Commission may choose to deny Mr. Reeves’ request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Building Review Commission Appeal form
2. Mr. Reeves’ written request
Packet Pg. 16
Thursday, August 26, 20219:00 AM MSTITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 17
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 26, 2021
Building Review Commission
STAFF
Sharlene Manno – Manager, Administration Services
SUBJECT
M-SQUARED HOME IMPROVEMENT REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSURE WITHOUT
PROVIDING REQUIRED TESTING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Reivew Commission on whether or not a
reinstatment should be issued to M-Squared Home Imporvements and Marty McVicker without required testing.
BACKGROUND
M-Squared Home Improvements is requesting that they be granted a license and supervisor’s certificate
reinstatement without completing the required International Code Council (ICC) testing. The testing required for
a reinstatement to be completed is the ICC National Standard Class C (G13).
M-Squared Home Imporvement’s license and supervisor’s certificate expired on 11/14/2019. At this time all
testing centers were functioning under normal circumstances as was the Development Review Center. A
renewal of this license and supervisor’s certificate could have been completed up to 60-days past the expiration
date without updated testing through 1/14/2020. The Development Review Center was operating at full capacity
up until March 16, 2020.
The most recent code year testing completed by Mr. McVicker, license and certificate holder for M-Squared
Home Improvements, covered the 2003 IRC (International Residential Code) on April 7, 2005 followed by the
City’s recertificate of the 2009 IRC codes. The City of Fort Collins is currently accepting 2015 and 2018
International Code Council passing testing certificates.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendations are as follows:
1. The Commission may choose to approve Mr. McVicker’s request for the reinstatement of his license and
supervisor’s certificate without required testing.
2. The Commission may choose to deny Mr. McVicker’s request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Building Review Commission Appeal form
Packet Pg. 19
August 26, 2021 9:00 a.m.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
STAFF REPORT August 26, 2021
Building Review Board
STAFF
Abbye Neel – Interim Water Conservation Manager
SUBJECT
BOARD FOLLOW-UP: PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCUATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide follow-up information to the March 25 presentation and receive additional
feedback on the proposed changes to Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the
City of Fort Colins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building Review Process.
Goals of this update include increasing accuracy and equity of the calculations and encouraging water efficient
designs in development. Staff will provide an overview of the project, how the proposed calculations compare
to the current system, impacts, and opportunities for future improvements.
BACKGROUND
Water Service Providers in Fort Collins
Utilities water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. Utilities supplies water to approximately
75% of residents and business within the Fort Collins city limits. Water service in the surrounding areas is
provided by other water providers, including water districts like East Larimer County (ECLO) and Fort Collins-
Loveland (FCLWD) water districts. Each water service provider has their own drivers (source of supply,
development patterns) that determine their WSR calculations and the policies, options, and costs for meeting
their WSR.
For this proposal, all proposed concepts only apply the Utilities water service area.
Key Terms and Definitions
Developers, including greenfield development and redevelopment, must meet a Water Supply
Requirement:
• Water Supply Requirements (WSR): A requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts
for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water
service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating
water rights or paying cash-in-lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water
resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure. WSRs are in line
with the City’s approach that development pays for itself.
• Cash-in-lieu: A developer can meet a WSR by paying cash, instead of providing water rights. The
cash-in-lieu rate is based on the cost to meet future water needs and includes the expected cost to
acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is $42,422 per 325,851 gallons
and is updated every two years.
Packet Pg. 21
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 2
Post-development, Utilities customers have an annual water allotment and may face Excess Water Use
surcharges. NOTE: These are not the focus of the work session. They are, however, related and it is
important to understand the connections.
• Allotments: All non-residential taps (commercial businesses and irrigation taps) installed after March
1984 have an allotment (volume of water in gallons) that is based upon the WSR that was satisfied
and the time of development or redevelopment. Only about 1,000 or 33% of commercial customers
have allotments. Customers can turn in more water rights or pay additional cash-in-lieu to increase
their allotments at any time.
• Excess Water Use surcharge: Non-residential taps with allotments face this surcharge if their annual
water use exceeds their allotment. This charge is in addition to the standard water use rates. The
surcharge provides revenue to purchase additional water rights and/or infrastructure to account for the
additional water demand over the allotment and therefore over the WSR satisfied for the property. The
surcharge is based on the cash-in-lieu rate. The surcharge is currently $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over
the allotment and is updated every two years. About 300 non-residential customers pay surcharges
each year.
DRIVERS – OUTCOMES – BENEFITS
Utilities is responsible for ensuring our customers have enough water today and into the future.
Utilities also upholds the City approach that development and redevelopment pay their own way. As the costs
of acquiring and developing water resources have increased, the cost to secure water for the additional
demand have increased, too. Since 2018 there has been a significant increase in both the cash-in-lieu rate and
surcharge. This is not unique to Utilities – all water providers across the Front Range are facing a significant
rise in costs. Most water providers are shifting to plan for populations much larger than previously expected,
and at the same time, climate change is dramatically increasing the variability in water availability from year to
year. Responsible water management is essential to meet the needs of Fort Collins today, and to maintain our
quality of life into the future.
The current WSR system uses tap size to determine the WSR for all non-residential developments. This
can be problematic because tap size is determined by peak daily demand, which does not always correlate to
annual water demand. Additionally, within a tap size, the current WSR calculation methodology is based on the
average annual demand for all customers who currently have that tap size. Within any given tap size, there are
many different business types, including mixed-use taps and irrigation taps that serve a variety of different
sizes and types of landscapes that are all treated the same. Since it is an average, some development’s actual
water use will be above the WSR and some will be below. This creates equity issues for developers and
customers alike; it means some developments subsidize other developments. And, in situations where the
WSRs are too low relative to the property’s actual water use, the allotments are also too small, placing the
burden on the customers, who many have pay substantial surcharges each year.
The proposed update can help Utilities, developers, and customers (the water users) by requiring a
WSR volume much closer to the water demand that the property is predicted to use. This will minimize
mismatches between actual use and the WSR. This is also the first WSR update that incentivizes water
efficiency and innovation. Addressing these opportunities now can ensure the utility and the community are
proactively implementing measures to meet future needs and manage increasing costs, while ensuring the
problem of mismatched allotments and WSRs are not perpetuated into the future. The proposal aims to meet
these needs by:
• Increasing Accuracy: In response to the rising costs of water, adjusting WSRs to be more data-
driven, detailed, and reflective of development-specific demand is becoming an industry standard.
Increased accuracy benefits Utilities, developers, and customers by ensuring WSRs, costs, and
allotments are truer to the specific development’s predicted water use.
Packet Pg. 22
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 3
• Improving Equity: Increased accuracy leads to increased equity by ensuring each developer pays
their fair share. By better connecting the WSR calculation to expected water use, Utilities ensures
each developer pays their share of costs to acquire and develop additional water resources and
makes it less likely that a development will pay too much or too little. It will also improve equity for the
actual water users, our Utilities’ customers, by ensuring they are not left facing an allotment that is too
small for their water needs.
• Promoting water efficiency and innovation: Aligning WSR calculations to demand allows highly
efficient developments, with lower water demand, to pay less, creating a cost incentive for more water-
efficient designs. From the perspective of both Utilities and developers, integrating efficient design
strategies at the time of construction is one of the most efficient and cost-effective strategies for
managing water demand. Efficient designs also benefit the customer by lowering water bills.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
WSRs are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights (cash-in-lieu) to ensure adequate water
supplies and associated infrastructure are available to serve both new development and re-development in the
Utilities water service area.
Goals of this update include increasing accuracy and equity of the calculations and encouraging water efficient
designs in development. Most of the changes would impact Development Review processes, however the
proposed changes to the Residential Sector would impact Building Review processes. A summary of the
current and proposed systems is found in Table 1. Details about each can be found in the “More Details”
section.
Table 1: Current and Proposed WSRs
Sector Current calculation is
based on:
Proposed new concept is
based on:
Impacted Process
Residential Number of Bedrooms +
Total Lot Size
Number of Bedrooms +
Outdoor Area Only
Building Review
Multifamily Number of Bedrooms +
Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms* Development Review
Commercial
Tap Size Business Type* Development Review
Irrigation Tap Size Landscape Type Development Review
*All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate tap and WSR.
MORE DETAILS
Non-residential (Commercial and Irrigation): Changes in this section impact Development Review
processes.
The current WSR is based only on tap size, customers can have mixed use taps (outdoor and indoor use on
the same tap), and tap size is determined by peak daily demand, which is largely uncorrelated with actual
annual water use. The WSR amount is based on a historical average of all non-residential customers with the
given tap size, which includes a mix of commercial businesses, irrigation, and mixed-use taps. There is a wide
variation of annual water demand in each tap size. The new approach proposes eliminating mixed-use taps
and separately predicting the WSR for commercial and irrigation. To this end, the new approach proposes that
all commercial businesses and multifamily developments with landscape irrigation have a separate irrigation
tap.
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 4
• Commercial WSR: Changes in the commercial sector impact Development Review processes.
The new concept for commercial development calculations is based on business type and size instead
of tap size. This reflects that different types of businesses have different water demands (e.g., retail vs.
restaurant water use). In the proposed concept, common business types have an assigned WSR value
that was calculated using a predictive model informed by Utilities’ water use data and other
information. High-water-use businesses and businesses that do not fit into an assigned category would
be required to submit an engineered estimate that outlines estimated annual water use.
Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs is a draft of business types and corresponding WSRs:
Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs
Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR
Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft
Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft
Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay
Childcare 28 gal/sq ft
Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft
Grocery 25 gal/sq ft
Hospital Case by Case
Hotel 24,000 gal/room
Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case
K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft
Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft
Nursing Homes Case by Case
Office 7 gal/sq ft
Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft
Recreation 36 gal/sq ft
Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft
Retail 5 gal/sq ft
Other Case by Case
In this proposal, if a 100,000 square foot retail space was developed, the WSR would be
calculated by multiplying 100,000 sq ft x 5 gal/sq ft, resulting in a 500,000 gallon WSR. This
step would be calculated at the end of the Development Review process or approval of Final
Plans. No approach or calculation methodology will be perfect. We know there will be variation
within a business type and year-to year for a given business (e.g., not all 100,000-square-foot
retail spaces use the exact same amount of water, nor does one customer use the same
amount of water each year), however the proposed approach addresses more variability than
the current tap size system.
• Irrigation WSRs: Changes in the irrigation sector impact Development Review processes. The
new concept for new landscape calculations is based on the amount of water needed by different
categories of landscapes. This will reflect that some plants require more water in our semi-arid climate,
while other plants require less water. The best tool to accomplish this is a Water Budget, which breaks
down landscape types by estimated water use instead of tap size. The Water Budget in Table 3 is
made up of four different categories. Plants are grouped into each category depending on their annual
water need as defined by the City of Fort Collins Plant List and industry standards. The WSR would be
based on the total estimated annual water use found in the table.
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 5
This proposed approach is already widely used by landscape architects, irrigation system designers,
and landscape managers. The Water Budget table is already a required element in the City’s Land
Use Code for all Landscape Plans, making this an easy approach to implement.
Here is an example to illustrate how it would work:
Table 3: Example Irrigation WSRs
Water Budget Table Example development w/ 7,000 square
feet of landscaped area
Water Use Water Value
(gal/sq ft) Square Feet Water Requirement
(gal)
High 18 5,000 90,000
Medium 14 1,000 14,000
Low 8 1,000 8,000
Very Low 3 0 0
Estimated Annual
Water Use (gal) 112,000
In the example above, the developer would need to satisfy a WSR of 112,000 gallons. This would be
calculated at the end of the Development Review process or approval of Final Plans. Like the shift to
business type, the Water Budget approach does a better job accounting for different water demands
by relying on landscape type rather than tap size, resulting in a more accurate WSR, which ultimately
benefits the utility and the end-user. Additionally, in this model, lower water use landscapes will pay
less, incentivizing efficient landscape design and creating more flexibility for developers.
Residential (2 units or less) and Multifamily (3 units or more): Changes in these sectors impact the
Development Review and Building Review process.
The current calculation for residential and multifamily WSRs is based on the number of bedrooms and total lot
size per development. Number of bedrooms aims to estimate indoor water use by approximating occupancy,
and the lot size aims to estimate outdoor water use. Given current data availability and analysis, number of
bedrooms continues to be the strongest predictor for indoor water use in residential and multifamily settings.
Lot size, however, is no longer the best predictor for outdoor water use.
The proposed concept for updating outdoor water use calculations in each sector is:
o Residential (2 units or less): Changes in the residential sector impact the Building
Review process. To reflect variations in outdoor irrigable area, staff recommends using
outdoor area as a predictor of outdoor water instead of lot size. It is a better predictor of
outdoor water use and also accounts for the variability of lot designs (e.g. a 7,000 square foot
lot with 1,000 vs. 5,000 square feet of outdoor area). Additionally, this change allows for the
possibility of indoor-only taps when there is no outdoor irrigation. This would be calculated
during the building permit process.
o Multifamily (3 units or more): Changes in the multifamily sector impact the Development
Review Process. Due to the size and set up of multifamily developments, staff recommends
requiring a separate irrigation tap that meets the irrigation sector requirements, described
above, to account for outdoor water use in multifamily settings. This change will allow for
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 6
better water management, proper tap sizing, and more accurate calculations. This would be
calculated at the end of the Development Review process or approval of Final Plans.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING UPDATES
Several other items were identified as essential complements to the proposed WSR updates. These include:
• Update WSR calculations every two years: To ensure WSRs reflect best practices and new building
efficiencies, staff proposes WSR calculations be revisited and updated every two-years.
• Non-Residential (Commercial and Irrigation Only) Alternative Compliance: To encourage
innovative and efficient design, staff proposes an alternative compliance option for non-residential
designs to meet a lower WSR if they provide an engineered estimate that demonstrates lower water
use. Currently, staff recommends to only provide alternative compliance for non-residential customers
because there are limited tools to regulate alternative compliances in residential settings.
• Redevelopment: Currently WSRs are only evaluated in redevelopment scenarios when a new meter
is installed. No evaluation takes place if there is only a change of use (e.g. retail space is redeveloped
into a brewery). To account for these situations, staff proposes including a WSRs revaluation any time
a change of use permit is filed with the building department. In the future, if a development has a
higher water need, they will be credited for the current WSR and required to meet the difference to
satisfy the higher WSR. If the future development has a lower water need, they will not be required to
meet any additional WSRs, and their WSR will stay the same (i.e., it will not be lowered). Review will
be triggered by a “Change of Use” permit, which is initially reviewed and processed by the Building
Review Department. In the proposed system, “Change of Use” permits will be routed to Utilities
Finance for review.
• Updates to Land Use Code: To align WSRs with Land Use Code, staff proposes updating the
Hydrozone values found in the water budget table to reflect industry standards and require the
irrigation plan earlier in the development process to better align irrigation and landscape design.
IMPACTS
Direct impacts to the Building Review Process result from changes in the residential sector. Specifically, the
Building Review process would be impacted by enforcing the Outdoor Area portion of the calculation. Details
about impact to Staff and costs described below:
• Plan Review: In alignment with industry best practices, the proposed concept requires additional
information (e.g., outdoor area square footage) to better predict the development’s future water
demand. As a result, builders will be required to provide information at different points and, sometimes,
earlier in the process. Building Review and Utilities staff will also be required to review the Outdoor
Area calculation, currently proposed to be:
Outdoor Area = Area of parcel – (Area of Buildings + Area of Paved Driveways + Area of City
Sidewalks + Area of Right-of-ways + Area of Ditches + Area of Railroads)
Needed information will be recorded in an Excel form that will automatically complete the calculation.
The document will be required as part of the Building Plan submittal documents and will refer to the
Site Plan. Utilities Finance will review and calculate costs compared to the site plan. Building Review
Staff will only be needed if there are discrepancies in the review process. This could add to Staff’s
review time of plans; however, the impact is expected to be manageable as many of the details are
already reviewed by Staff just not in this context.
• Enforcement: Building Review Staff will be required to verify the Outdoor Area layout on site reviews.
If a plan does not align with what is the in the field the building will fail its inspection and the project will
Packet Pg. 26
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 7
not be issued its Certification of Occupancy or Letter of Completion until corrected. Utilities Finance
will reevaluate costs to reflect what was installed in the field after the correction. Since site plans are
already verified in the field this is expected to have little impact on Staff processes unless there is a
discrepancy with the submitted plans.
• Impacts to cost of single-family home: On the whole homes with smaller outdoor areas and less
bedrooms will pay less, when compared to the current system, however on a per lot basis the cost
difference from the current to future system is a few hundred dollars. In a sample of 400 homes, built
in 2015 or later, the average cost calculated using the new system was estimated to be $12,600 per
lot, while the average cost calculated in the current system was estimated to be $12,900 per lot. While
this is only a $300 difference in cost, in a large single-family development the difference could equate
to thousands of dollars in savings (e.g. in a development with 200 single family lots the savings would
be $60,000).
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH
Staff has completed extensive internal and external outreach, summarized below. Staff are grateful to the
many individuals who contributed to the proposal.
• City Council: Staff presented at a City Counicl work session in May of 2021. Materials can be found
here. A few notable comments and suggestions include:
o The presentation provided a concise and clear overview of the proposed changes and
impacts.
o City Council supports the proposal, timeline, and that calculations be reviewed every two
years to allow for modifications or improvements that reflect new development practices or
better methodologies (e.g. examining if number of bedrooms continues to be the best predictor
of indoor water use in residential and multifamily settings).
o Questions included details on how taps are sized, examples of alternative compliance
scenarios, what input Staff received from Developers, and how the changes impact the
Development Review process. Additionally, Council asked for clarifications around how Water
Supply Requirements are scaled for low versus high-water use landscapes and how the
calculations work for a mixed landscape.
o City Council requests that Staff consider how Water Supply Requirements can align and
support goals outlined in City plans, including the Housing Strategic Plan and Climate Action
Plan.
• Internal: City Departments including the Parks Planning, Parks, Natural Areas, Building Services,
Utilities Finance, and Planning and Development Review all provided extensive feedback. A few
notable comments and suggestions include:
o Support changes, particularity in the irrigation and commercial sector.
o Plan for additional staff time needed to review and enforce.
• External: Staff met with a variety of external stakeholders including the Chamber of Commerce, credit
and certificate holders, certified landscape professionals, the Board of Realtors, key accounts, the
restaurant community, and property owners. A few notable comments and suggestions include:
o Help provide education for business owners and highly impacted business sectors (e.g.
restaurants) to ensure customers understand the implications when redeveloping and/or
developing by expanding to a new location.
• Focus Group: In addition to the individual external stakeholder engagement, staff completed four 2-
hour focus groups to gather in-depth feedback from highly impacted groups. 68 developers, landscape
architects, irrigation designers, and builders were invited to participate. Seventeen were ultimately able
to attend the sessions. Each session covered a specific topic.
Packet Pg. 27
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 8
Feedback gathered at each focus group is summarized below in Table 4: Focus Group Summary:
• Boards and Commissions: Boards and Commissions: Staff presented to the Water Board (Oct
2019, April 2021, June 2021), Building Review Board (April 2021), Natural Resource Advisory Board
(June 2021) and to many Board and Commission members at a Super Issue meeting (April 2021). A
few notable comments and suggestions include:
o Support of changes, especially requiring separate irrigation tap.
o Desire to include alternative compliance for single and multifamily developments in future
WSR update efforts.
REGIONAL COMPARISIONS
While each water service provider has their own drivers for determining WSR calculations, the proposed
methodology is largely aligned with others in the region.
Table 5: Regional WSR Comparisons highlights differences and similarities amongst neighboring communities.
Within the table, green aligns with the proposed changes, yellow is closely aligned, and red does not align. As
costs continue to rise, and the need to plan and manage water demand increases, it is expected that more
water service provider will move toward industry best practices and adopt similar approaches.
Table 5: Regional WSR Comparisons
Separate
Irrigation
Tap
Irrigation Residential and Multifamily Non-residential
Utilities
Current No Tap Size SF: Beds + Lot Size
MF: Beds + Lot Size Tap Size
Utilities
Proposed Yes Water
Budget
SF: Beds + Outdoor Area
MF: Beds + Lot Size Business Type
Table 4: Focus Group Summary
Focus What We Heard What We Incorporated
Irrigation • Like that cost is reflective of how
much a landscape will use.
• Request for alternative compliance
option.
• Alternative compliance method
allowed if supplemental design
information is provided that
demonstrates lower water use.
Commercial • Like that cost is more reflective of
actual businesses water use.
• Request for alternative compliance
option.
• Request to not require separate
irrigation tap if there is minimal
outdoor irrigation.
• Alternative compliance method
allowed if supplemental design
information is provided that
demonstrates lower water use.
• If landscape requires less than
30,000 gallons a year, a separate
irrigation tap will not be required.
Residential
and
Multifamily
• Like that multifamily is required to
have separate irrigation tap as it
allows for lower costs with efficient
design.
• Request for alternative compliance
option.
• Ensure water use analysis is
reflective of efficiencies in new builds.
• Exploring building and land use code
updates that would make alternative
compliance feasible in the future.
• Requirements updated every two
years to reflect any efficiencies due
to new building codes or other
relevant changes.
Packet Pg. 28
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 9
FCLWD* Yes Tap size SF: Lot size
MF: # units Tap size
ELCO** Yes Water
budget
SF: Lot size
MF: # units
> 0.75’’ tap = Case by
case
Westminster Yes Water
budget
SF: Bed/Bath + Irrigation
Area
MF: Bedrooms
Business type
Greeley Yes Water
budget SF/MF: Lot size Business type
Boulder Yes Water
budget
SF/MF: Bedrooms +
Irrigation Area Fixture Counts
Loveland Highly
Encouraged
Water
budget SF/MF: Units + Lot Size Tap size
*FCLWD: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
**ELCO: East Larimer County Water District
NEXT STEPS
Next Steps for this proposal:
1. Continue outreach and education to boards, commission, and public.
2. Return for formal council consideration (anticipated Sept. 21, 2021).
3. New WSRs calculation implemented, if adopted by City Council (effective January 2022).
Related Future Efforts: The effort to create this proposal highlighted several additional opportunities for
potential next projects.
• Cash-in-Lieu Increase (planned for late fall 2021): An effort is underway to update the cash-in-lieu
cost. The cash-in-lieu cost is reviewed and updated every two years. It reflects the cost to acquire and
develop additional water resources like water rights, infrastructure, and storage projects like the
Halligan Water Supply Project. These costs continue to increase for a variety of reasons. It is
important to ensure the cash-in-lieu cost is based on the best available information to ensure Utilities
collects adequate revenue to develop water supplies for new developments.
• Explore alternative compliance for single and multifamily developments: To further support
opportunities for efficient and innovative design, while also mitigating risks to Utilities’ planning and cost
recovery, staff proposes to explore how to allow an alternative compliance option for residential and
multifamily sectors. One possibility to mitigate risks is to implement changes to the Building Code that
would create structure for residential alternative compliance enforcement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendations are as follows:
1. The Board approves the Water Supply Requirement updates and request that the board make a motion
to support this effort in the future. Furthermore, staff request a letter of support from the Chair to present
to Council.
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 10
Proposed Motion:
Based on the Staff Report presented, I __________ would like to make a motion that Building Review Board
supports these changes and that the Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in support of these changes for Council
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation, Water Supply Requirements
2. Power Point Presentation, Water Supply Requirements Update, May 27
3. Building Review Board Minutes, March 25
Packet Pg. 30
August 26, 2021
Water Supply
Requirements
Abbye Neel, Interim Water
Conservation Manager
Proposed concepts
would only apply to
new development
and re-development
within Fort Collins
Utilities water service
area.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 31
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
Water Impact Fees
PLANT INVESTMENT
FEES (PIF)
DISTRIBUTION
WATER TREATMENTWATER TREATMENT
WATER METER FEES
WATER METERS
WATER SUPPLY
REQUIREMENT (WSR)CACHE LA
POUDRE RIVERWATER
SUPPLY
HOHOHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOHHHOHOHHHHHHOHHHORSRSRSRSRSSRSRSRRRRRRRRRETETETETETETETEEEETOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTHTHTHTHHTHTHTHTH
RERRERRERRRSESESESESESESSEESESSRVRVRVRVRVVVVVOIOIOOOIOIOIORRRRRRRRRRR WA
SU
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
WATER SUPPLY
REQUIREMENT (WSR)
What are Water Supply Requirements?
Development Additional Water Demand
Water Supply Requirements
(WSR)
Calculation of volume of water
needed to meet additional demand.
Water Rights or cash-
in-lieu of water rights. Total WSR Cost Calculation of volume of water
needed to meet additional demand.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
What are Water Supply Requirements?
Development Additional Water Demand
Water Supply Requirements
(WSR)
translated to water allotments for all
commercial and irrigation customers.
Strategic Alignment
City Plan
Housing Strategic Plan
Our Climate Future
Nature in the City
Colorado Water Plan
Water Efficiency Plan
Water Shortage Action Plan
Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy
City Strategic Plan
Utilities Strategic Plan
Water Supply
Requirements
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 33
History of Water Supply Requirements (WSR)
1960
Utilities starts requiring
WSR
1984
Major update to WSR
methodology and start
assigning allotments
2018
Major update to WSR
methodology and cost
2019
Allotment Management
Program
Launch update to WSR
2021 (Sept)
Formal City Council
consideration
2022 (Jan)
New WSRs
implemented, if adopted
by City Council
Drivers - Outcomes - Benefits
Increase accuracy
Improve equity
Promote water efficiency & innovation
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 34
Proposed Concepts for New Development
Category Current calculation based on:Proposed new concept based on:
Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot
Size
Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area
Multifamily Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot
Size
Number of Bedrooms*
Commercial Tap Size Business Type*
Irrigation Tap Size Landscape Type
*All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate irrigation tap and
WSR.
Additional Components:
•Alternative Compliance for commericial and irrigation taps
•Land Use Code updates
Categgggggoryyyyyy Current calculation based on:Propppppposed new conceppppppt based on:
Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot
Size
Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area
M ltif il N b f B d T t l L t N b f B d *
Examples
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 35
Mixed Use Development Example
Multifamily development
Multifamily water supply
requirement.
Irrigation water supply
requirement.
Commercial space water
supply requirement.
Mixed Use Development Example
1,110,000
76,000
Multifamily (Indoor)Irrigation
Average Annual Water Use
Max (1,200,000)
Max (84,000)
Max Annual Water Use
100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 36
Current
Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ሾ ͻǤ͵ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ͳ͵ǡͷͻʹǤͺ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ ሿ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Indoor
Water Use
݀
Irrigation
Water Use
Current
Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation
Lot Size: 30,504
square feet Bedrooms: 100
ͻǤ͵ ൈ ͵ͲǡͷͲͶ ሺͳ͵ǡͷͻʹǤͺ ൈ ͳͲͲሻ
ʹͻ͵ǡͻ͵ ሺͳǡ͵ͷͻǡʹͺͲሻ
ͳǡ͵ͷͻǡʹͺͲ ൌ ܶݐ݈ܽ ܫ݊݀ݎʹͻ͵ǡͻ͵ ൌ ܶݐ݈ܽ ܫݎݎ݅݃ܽݐ݅݊
ͳǡͷ͵ǡʹͳ ൌ ܶݐ݈ܽ ܹܴܵሺ݈݃ܽሻ
ͻǤ͵ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ͳ͵ǡͷͻʹǤͺ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 37
Mixed Use Development Example
1,110,000
76,000
1,360,000
290,000
Multifamily (Indoor)Irrigation
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR
Max
Max 6 00076000
Max Annual Water Use
100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft
Future
Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation - Indoor
Lot Size: 30,504
square feet Bedrooms: 100
ͻǤ͵ ൈ ͵ͲǡͷͲͶ ሺǡ ൈ ͳͲͲሻ
ʹͻ͵ǡͻ͵ ሺͳǡ͵ͳͲǡͲͲͲሻ
ͳǡ͵ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ൌ ܶݐ݈ܽ ࡵࢊ࢘ ܹܴܵ ሺ݈݃ܽሻ
Future WSR
ͻǤ͵ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ǡ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 38
Future
Multifamily Water Supply Requirement Calculation - Outdoor
Water Budget Table
Hydrozone Square Footage
Hydrozone Water Need
gal/sq ft
Annual Water Need
gal/sq ft
High 2,390 18 43,020
Moderate 2,205 14 22,050
Low 940 8 2,820
Very Low 0 30
Total 5,535 81,410
Future WSR & Allotment
Mixed Use Development Example
1,110,000
76,000
1,360,000
290,000
1,310,000
81,000
Multifamily (Indoor)Irrigation
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR Future WSR
Max
Max 66 0000076600000 8181 000000
Max Annual Water Use
100 Bedrooms 5,500 sq ft
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 39
Mixed Use Development Example
Multifamily development
Multifamily water supply
requirement.
Irrigation water supply
requirement.
Commercial space water
supply requirement.
Mixed Use Development Example
50,000
Commercial
Average Annual Water Use
Max (67,000)
Max Annual Water Use
Restaurant (1,500 sq ft)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 40
Current
Commercial Water Supply Requirement Calculation
Tap Size (inches)WSR (acre-feet)Annual Allotment
(Gal/Year)
3/4 0.90 293,270
1 2.27 739,680
1.5 4.72 1,538,020
2 7.91 2,577,480
3 or above Engineered estimate required.
3/4 0.90
1111111 2222222 22222227777777
293,270
777777733333339999999 666666688888880000000
Mixed Use Development Example
50,000
293,000
Commercial
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)
Max
Max Annual Water Use
Restaurant (1,500 sq ft)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 41
Future
Commercial Water Supply Requirement Calculation
Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR
Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft
Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft
Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay
Childcare 28 gal/sq ft
Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft
Grocery 25 gal/sq ft
Hospital Case by Case
Hotel 24,000 gal/room
Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case
K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft
Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft
Nursing Homes Case by Case
Office 7 gal/sq ft
Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft
Recreation 36 gal/sq ft
Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft
Retail 5 gal/sq ft
Other Case by Case
Recreation 36 gal/sq ft
RRR ttt ililil 555 l/l/l/l/ffffttt
Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft
1,428 s.f.*145 gal/s.f./yr = 207,060 gal
WSR &
Allotment
Building
Square
Footage
Business type’s
estimated use based on
real customer data.
Mixed Use Development Example
50,000
293,000
171,000
Commercial
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Buisness Type)
Max
Max Annual Water Use
Restaurant (1,500 sq ft)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 42
Mixed Use Development Example
Current
WSR (gal)
Future WSR
(gal)
Current Cost Future Cost
Multifamily
(100 Beds)
1,360,000 1,310,000 $178,000 $166,000
Irrigation
(5,500 Sq Ft)
294,000 81,000 $38,000 $11,000
Commercial
(Restaurant
1,500 sq ft)
293,000 171,000 $38,000 $22,000
Total 1,947,000 1,562,000 $254,000 $199,000
Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price.
Landscapes use water
differently.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 43
76,000
342,000
278,000
Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds
(5,500 Sq Ft)
Bluegrass
(20,000 Sq Ft)
Native Grass
(40,000 Sq Ft)
Average Annual Water Use
Average Annual Water Use
Max
Max
Max
Max Annual Water Use
76,000
342,000
278,000
293,000 293,000 293,000
Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds
(5,500 Sq Ft)
Bluegrass
(20,000 Sq Ft)
Native Grass
(40,000 Sq Ft)
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)
Max
Max
Max
Max Annual Water Use
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 44
76,000
342,000
278,000
293,000 293,000 293,000
81,000
302,000 314,000
Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds
(5,500 Sq Ft)
Bluegrass
(20,000 Sq Ft)
Native Grass
(40,000 Sq Ft)
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future Water Budget & WSR
Max
Max
Max
Max Annual Water Use
Cost Implications
Grass w/ Xeric
Planting Beds
Bluegrass Native Grass
Square Feet 5,500 20,000 40,000
Current (Tap Size)$38,000 $38,000 $38,000
Future (Water
Budget)
$10,500 $40,000 $41,000
•High-water-use landscapes may pay more.
•Large landscapes may pay more.
•Low-water-use landscapes may pay less.
•Smaller landscapes may pay less.
Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 45
Single family developments
use water differently.
Single Family Example
20,100
56,200
45,800
143,000
2 Bedroom
Lot Size: 2,300 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 1,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 49%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 3,000 sq ft
Outoor Area: 2,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 69%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 6,700 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 2,800 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 42%
4 Bedroom
Lot Size: 12,000 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 9,200 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 78%
Average Annual Water UseMax Annual Water Use
Max
Max
(23,700)
Max (58,000)
Max (88,500)
Max (205,000)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 46
Single Family Example
20,100
56,200
45,800
143,000
40,500
57,400
84,200
133,000
2 Bedroom
Lot Size: 2,300 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 1,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 49%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 3,000 sq ft
Outoor Area: 2,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 69%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 6,700 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 2,800 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 42%
4 Bedroom
Lot Size: 12,000 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 9,200 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 78%
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Bdrms + Lot Size)
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max Annual Water Use
Single Family Example
20,100
56,200
45,800
143,000
40,500
57,400
84,200
133,000
35,500
57,100
65,100
141,000
2 Bedroom
Lot Size: 2,300 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 1,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 49%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 3,000 sq ft
Outoor Area: 2,000 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 69%
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 6,700 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 2,800 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 42%
4 Bedroom
Lot Size: 12,000 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 9,200 sq ft
Percent Outdoor: 78%
Average Annual Water Use Current WSR (Bdrms + Lot Size)Future WSR (Bdrms + Outdoor Area)
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max Annual Water UseM
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 47
Cost Implications
Cost 2 Bedroom
Lot Size: 2,300 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 1,000 sq ft
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 3,000 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 2,000 sq ft
3 Bedroom
Lot Size: 6,700 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 2,800 sq ft
4 Bedroom
Lot Size: 12,000 sq ft
Outdoor Area: 9,200 sq ft
Current WSR
(Bdrm + Lot Size)
$5,200 $7,500 $11,000 $17,300
Future WSR
(Bdrm + Outdoor Area)
$4,600 $7,400 $8,500 $18,400
•More bedrooms pay more.
•Large outdoor areas pay more.
•Less bedrooms pay less.
•Smaller outdoor areas pay less.
Cost estimates at 2021 Cash-in-lieu price.
Community Engagement
Who we heard
from:What we heard:What we propose to
change:
Boards and
Commissions,
Stakeholder Groups,
Focus Groups
Liked increased flexibility
and accuracy.
Wanted alternative
compliance options.
Created alternative compliance
options for commercial and
irrigation.
Wanted frequent updates
to address increased
efficiencies in new builds.
Set calculations to be reviewed
every two years.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 48
Separate
Irrigation
Tap
Irrigation Residential and
Multifamily Commercial
Fort Collins Yes Water
Budget
SF: Beds + Outdoor Area
MF: Bedrooms Business Type
FCLWD Yes Tap size
SF: Lot size
MF: # units Tap size
ELCO Yes Water
budget
SF: Lot size
MF: # units
> 0.75’’ tap = Case by
case
Westminster Yes Water
budget
SF: Bed/Bath + Irrigation
Area
MF: Bedrooms
Business type
Greeley Yes Water
budget SF/MF: Lot size Business type
Loveland Highly
Encouraged
Water
budget SF/MF: Units + Lot Size Tap size
Next Steps
1.Continued Outreach and Education (Ongoing)
2.Formal City Council Consideration (Sept 2021)
3. Adoption (Jan 2022)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 49
Related Future Efforts
Increase accuracy
Improve equity
Promote water
efficiency & innovation
1.Update cash-in-lieu (late 2021)
2.Require allotments for all
non-residential customers
3.Add residential alternative
compliance option
4.Evaluate & align Plant Investment
Fee (PIF) calculations
Motion
Proposed Motion:
Based on the Staff Report presented, I __________ would like to
make a motion that Building Review Board supports these changes
and that the Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in support of these
changes for Council consideration.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 50
Businesses use water
differently.
Commercial Examples
373,000
104,000
413,000
199,696
Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2
Average Water UseMax Water Use
100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft
Max
(500,000)
Max (110,000)
Max (500,000)
Max (365,000)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 51
Commercial Examples
373,000
104,000
413,000
199,696
740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000
Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2
Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)
Max
Max
Max
Max
100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft
Max Water Use
Commercial Examples
373,000
104,000
413,000
199,696
740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000
562,000
116,000
582,000
252,590
Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2
Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Buisness Type)
Max
116 000Max
Max
Max
100,000 sq ft 11,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft
WSR: 5
gal/sq ft
WSR: 145
gal/sq ft
WSR: 11
gal/sq ft
WSR: 145
gal/sq ft
Max Water Use
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 52
Cost Implications
•High-water-use developments may pay more
•Large businesses developments may pay more.
•Low-water-use developments may pay less.
•Small businesses development may pay less.
Cost Retail
(100,000 sq ft)
Place of
Worship
(11,600 sq ft)
Restaurant 1
(4,000 sq ft)
Restaurant 2
(1,700 sq ft)
Current
(Tap Size)
$97,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000
Future
(Business Type)
$74,000 $15,000 $76,000 $33,000
Considers future investments (e.g., storage, water
rights, etc.) needed to meet future water needs of
development
Current CIL rate = $22,145 / acre-foot
ܸ݈ܽݑ݁ ݂ ܨݑݐݑݎ݁ ܫ݊ݒ݁ݏݐ݉݁݊ݐ
ܫ݊ܿݎ݁ܽݏ݁݀ ܨ݅ݎ݉ ܻ݈݅݁݀
ൌܥܫܮܴܽݐ݁
Cash-in-lieu (CIL) Rate
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 53
Future Water Supply Needs
How much will it cost to increase firm yield
for new development?
$63.9M: Infrastructure (e.g., storage)
+ $25.5M: Future water rights (requires storage)
+ $40.5M: Value from existing portfolio
$129.9M: Total cost to increase firm yield
$ggggg (((((qqqq g )
+++ $$$$$$$40.5M: Value from $existing portfoliogp
$129 9M:Tottallll costttttt ttttto iiiiincrease ffffffiiirm yield
Future supplies would not provide adequate yield
without existing portfolio
Who is impacted?
Developers
High Impact Low ImpactMedium Impact
Non-residential
customers
Residential
customers
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 54
Excess Water Use Surcharges
Excess Water Use
(EWU) Surcharge
+ $10.39 per 1,000 gal
Annual Allotment
is exceeded. + $10.39
Regular Use Rates
Winter: $2.81 per 1,000 gal
Summer: $3.23 per 1,000 gal
Water Supply Requirements translated into annual
allotment for non-residential customers.
AMP Structure
Eligible customers submit a plan for long-term, permanent water
reduction.
Staff determines if customer and project qualify.
If project qualifies, customer receives a temporary exemption from
excess water use fees.
Customers who do complete project may be billed for any applicable
surcharges.
Allotment Management Program (AMP)
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 55
Future -Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
What:Fee to pay for transmission, treatment, and distribution facilities.
Non-residential (commercial and irrigation)
Tap Size Cost
Commercial
Cost
Irrigation
¾ inch
Decrease
50%
Increase
50 %1 inch
1.5 inch
2 inch
Larger meters Peak day
demand*$5.39
Peak day
demand*$5.39
Multifamily
Component Cost
Indoor $567 per living unit
Outdoor $0.30 per lot area
Other Utilities who take this approach:
•ELCO
•FCLWD
•Aurora Water
•Castle Rock
Project Team
Project Team
•Fort Collins Utilities
•Water Resources
•Water Conservation
•Finance
•Engineering
•City of Fort Collins
•Planning and Development Review
•Forestry
•Natural Areas
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 56
Other Project Considerations
Land Use Code
Updates
Development Review
Process
Minor Amendment
Process
Irrigation Plan
Requirements
Plant Investment
Fees
Alternative
Compliance
Scenarios
LEAN Process
Mapping
Excess Water Use
surcharges
Water Supply Factor
(1.92)
Redevelopment
Approach
Development Review Processes Utility Processes Policy Decisions
Billing System and
Water Permit
Alignment
Site Plan Submittals
Residential
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 57
Current Process
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ሾ ǤͲͶͺ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ͳʹǡʹͳǤͻ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ ሿ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Single Family/Duplex
Water Use
Indoor
Water Use
݀
Irrigation
Water Use
Accounts for variability in Fort
Collins Utilities Water Supplies.
Converts from gallons to
acre-feet.
ǡ
Future Process
ሺǡ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏሻ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Single Family/Duplex
NOTE: Single Family and Duplex are NOT subject to Excess Water Use surcharges or allotments.
ൈ ܲ݁ݎݒ݅ݑݏ ݈ݐ ܽݎ݁ܽ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Indoor Water Use
Irrigation Water UseWater Supply Factor
Now included in the
Cash-In-Lieu
modeling and price.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 58
Opportunities –Single Family/Duplex
Lot Size vs. Outdoor Area
Lot Size: 4,600 Sq Ft
Outdoor Area: ~2,900 Sq Ft
ǤͲͶͺ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁
Current Irrigation Water Use
Future Irrigation Water Use
՛ ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܥ݂݂݁݅ܿ݁݊ݐ ൈ՝ ܱݑݐ݀ݎ ܣݎ݁ܽ
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܥ݂݂݁݅ܿ݁݊ݐ ൌ ͳͲ ݈݃ܽ ݁ݎ ݏݍ ݂ݐ
ͳͲ ൈ ܱݑݐ݀ݎ ܣݎ݁ܽ
Cost Analysis
Built 2015 –2019
Sample: 1,469 Records
10%
Cost more in new system.
90%
Cost less in new system.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 59
Irrigation
Hydrozone Table
Future Water Budget Table
Hydrozone
Square
Footage
Hydrozone Water
Need
gal/sq ft
Annual Water
Need
gal/sq ft
High Hydrozone 100,068 18 1,801,224
Moderate Hydrozone 41,997 14 587,958
Low 35,171 8 281,368
Very Low 3 0
Total 2,670,550
Future
Current Water Budget Table
Hydrozone
Square
Footage
Hydrozone Water
Need
gal/sq ft
Annual Water
Need
gal/sq ft
High Hydrozone 100,068 18 1,801,224
Moderate Hydrozone 41,997 10 419,970
Low 35,171 3 105,513
Very Low 0 0
Total 2,326,707
Current
Change 1
Require separate irrigation taps.
Change 2
Water Supply Requirements and allotments
based on landscape water budget table.
Hyyyyyyydrddddddoz
N
ga
Change 3
Updating hydrozone values.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 60
When is an irrigation meter needed?
Separate irrigation meter required for all
non-residential, multifamily, and
common space irrigation unless
landscape requires less than 30,000
gallons of water per year.
Commercial
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 61
DRAFT NUMBERS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Fort Collins Utilities Non-Residential Water Supply Requirements
Auto Retail (23 gal/sq ft)Industrial/Manufacturing (Case by Case)
Auto Service and Repair (8 gal/sq ft)K- 12 Schools (10 gal/sq ft)
Car Wash (Self Serve Bays) (150,200 gal/bay)Medical Office (21 gal/sq ft)
Car Wash (Drive Through) (1,340 gal/ sq ft)Nursing Homes (Case by Case)
Childcare (26 gal/sq ft)Office (6 gal/sq ft)
Churches (9 gal/sq ft)Recreation (26 gal/sq ft)
Gas Station (40 gal/sq ft)Restaurant (121 gal/sq ft)
Grocery (23 gal/sq ft)Retail (5 gal/sq ft)
Hospital (Case by Case)Warehouse (6 gal/sq ft)
Hotel/Motel (22,530 gal/room)Other (Case by Case)
Multifamily
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 62
Current Process
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ሾ ͻǤ͵ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ͳ͵ǡͷͻʹǤͺ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ ሿ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Multifamily –3 units or more
Water Use
Indoor
Water Use
݀
Irrigation
Water Use
Future Process
ǡ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Multifamily -Indoor Only
NOTE: Multifamily indoor are NOT subject to Excess Water Use surcharges or allotments.
Irrigation Water Use
Separate irrigation meter and WSR calculation
using water budget table.
Indoor
Water Use
Water Supply Factor
Now included in the Cash-In-Lieu modeling
and price.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 63
0DUFKWK
:DWHU6XSSO\5HTXLUPHQWV
%XLOGLQJ5HYLHZ%RDUG
3URSRVHGFKDQJHV
RQO\DSSO\WR )RUW
&ROOLQV8WLOLWLHVZDWHU
VHUYLFHDUHD
GLVFXVVLRQFRQWLQXHV
ZLWK'LVWULFWV
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 64
'HILQLWLRQV
6LQJOH)DPLO\&DOFXODWLRQV
'XSOH[ 8QLWV 6LQJOH)DPLO\ 8QLW
:KDWDUH:DWHU6XSSO\5HTXLUHPHQWV"
$GGLWLRQDO:DWHU'HPDQG1HZ'HYHORSPHQW
:DWHU6XSSO\5HTXLUHPHQW
:65 SD\VIRUQHZVXSSOLHV
WRPHHWGHPDQG
)HHVSDLGE\1HZ
'HYHORSPHQW
NOTE: Not associated with rates; does not include water or wastewater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs).
7UDQVODWHGWR:DWHU
$OORWPHQWIRU,UULJDWLRQ
&RPPRQ6SDFH
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 65
&XUUHQW3URFHVV
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ሾ ǤͲͶͺ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁ ͳʹǡʹͳǤͻ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏ ሿ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
6LQJOH)DPLO\'XSOH[
:DWHU8VH
,QGRRU
:DWHU8VH
݀
,UULJDWLRQ
:DWHU8VH
Accounts for variability in Fort
Collins Utilities Water Supplies.
Converts from gallons to
acre-feet.
ǡ
2SSRUWXQLWLHV± 6LQJOH)DPLO\'XSOH[
/RW6L]HYV3HUYLRXV$UHD
/RW6L]H 6T)W
3HUYLRXV$UHD a 6T)W
ǤͲͶͺ ൈ ܮݐ ܵ݅ݖ݁
&XUUHQW,UULJDWLRQ:DWHU8VH
)XWXUH,UULJDWLRQ:DWHU8VH
՛ ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܥ݂݂݁݅ܿ݁݊ݐ ൈ՝ ܱݑݐ݀ݎ ܣݎ݁ܽ
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܥ݂݂݁݅ܿ݁݊ݐ ൌ ͳͲ ݈݃ܽ ݁ݎ ݏݍ ݂ݐ
ͳͲ ൈ ܱݑݐ݀ݎ ܣݎ݁ܽ
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 66
)XWXUH3URFHVV
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ሺǡ ൈ ܤ݁݀ݎ݉ݏሻ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
6LQJOH)DPLO\'XSOH[
NOTE: Single Family and Duplex are NOT subject to Excess Water Use surcharges or allotments.
ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑ݈ݕ ܨܽܿݐݎ ൈ ൈ ܱݑݐ݀ݎ ݈ݐ ܽݎ݁ܽ
͵ʹͷǡͺͷͳ
Indoor Water Use
Irrigation Water Use
&RVW$QDO\VLV
%XLOW±
6DPSOH 5HFRUGV
&RVWPRUH LQQHZV\VWHP
&RVWOHVV LQQHZV\VWHP
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 67
7UDGHRIIV
3URV
9 ,QGRRURQO\WDSVDOORZHG
9 /RZHUFRVWLIGHYHORSPHQW
KDVVPDOOHURXWGRRU
DUHDV
9 ,QFUHDVHGDFFXUDF\
9 /RZHUXVHUVGRQRW
FRPSHQVDWHKLJKHUXVHUV
&RQV
î $GGLWLRQDOVXEPLWWDO
UHTXLUPHQWV
î 3RWHQWLDOIRUORQJHU
UHYLHZWLPHV
î +LJKHUFRVWVIRU
GHYHORSPHQWVZLWKODUJH
RXWGRRUDUHDV
3RWHQWLDO,PSOLFDWLRQV
0RUH(IILFLHQW6PDOO3HUYLRXV$UHD /RZHU&RVW
/HVV(IILFLHQW/DUJHU3HUYLRXV$UHD +LJKHU&RVW
!
!
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 68
0RWLRQ
Based on the Staff Report presented, I __________ would
like to make a motion that Building Review Board supports
these changes and that the Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in
support of these changes for Council consideration.
7KDQN\RX
$EE\H 1HHO
DQHHO#IFJRYFRP
IFJRYFRPZVUXSGDWH
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 69
City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 25, 2021
Alan Cram, Chair
Tim Johnson, Vice Chair
Brad Massey
Katharine Penning
Eric Richards
Justin Robinson Staff Liaison:
Mark Teplitsky Rich Anderson
Chief Building Official
Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2021
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held virtually on Thursday, March 25, 2021, at
9:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
Mr. Anderson read a statement regarding authorization and procedures for remote meetings.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Richards, Teplitsky
ABSENT: Robinson
STAFF: Anderson, Manno, Havelda, Schiager
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes to the published agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
[Timestamp: 9:07 a.m.]
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 2021 MEETING.
Mr. Richards moved to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2021 meeting. Mr. Teplitsky
seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
Building Review Board
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 70
City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 25, 2021
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information on the proposed changes
to Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building
Review Process.
STAFF: Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager
Staff Report
Ms. Neel presented the staff report, explaining that water supply requirements refer to irrigation needs.
She explained the formula that is currently being used is based on lot size, but staff has determined it
would more accurately be calculated based on outdoor area. She talked about the process changes
that would be needed to make this change and explained that this change would mean properties with
no outdoor area would not have any water supply requirements. She also explained the pros and cons
of the proposed approach noting it allows for indoor-only taps. She noted an analysis of single-family
developments built between 2015 and 2019 showed 10% of the time, the proposed new system would
have cost more and 90% of the time, it would have cost less. She stated staff is seeking a motion from
the Board in support of the changes.
Board Questions and Discussion
Mr. Richards asked if all hardscaped areas will be removed from the lot size calculation. Ms. Neel
replied in the affirmative but noted sidewalks are not included as they are not consistent throughout the
city and can easily be changed.
Mr. Richards asked if the City reviews whether the developer or homeowner actually installs proposed
hardscaping and calculations are therefore accurate. Mr. Anderson replied some type of process will
need to be implemented depending upon what Council decides. He stated he has worked in
communities wherein impervious cover surveys were required as part of final documents and that type
of model could be used. Ms. Neel clarified the difference between impervious and pervious surfaces
noting the building footprint, garage footprint, driveways, and those types of structures are deemed
impervious.
Mr. Richards asked if there are benefits to the developer for xeriscaping. Ms. Neel replied in the
negative as there is no way of ensuring xeric landscaping will remain in the future.
Ms. Penning asked about the current requirements for identifying impervious and new impervious area
based on modifications to a site. Mr. Anderson replied he would need to do research on those specific
requirements regarding the building permitting process and get back to the Board.
Ms. Penning asked if that process may only occur during the planning and development process. Ms.
Neel replied she believes that is correct but noted it would need to be required as part of the building
permit process should these changes be implemented.
Ms. Penning commented determining new impervious area should be readily attainable though the cost
of having a finalized survey may be a deterrent for custom home builders. Mr. Anderson replied the
policy that would be implemented would likely not require the survey unless it couldn’t be verified.
Public Input
Mr. Hill asked how things like necessary water for maintenance of turf lawns and the placement of
aggregate material is taken into account. He commented on challenges with establishing xeric-style
grasses. Ms. Neel replied there is a great deal of opportunity to refine the current proposal to take
those kinds of issues into consideration. She commented on the need to refine calculations and create
a more formalized process to take into account specific landscaping details and possible future changes
thereto for single-family homes. She noted there is a process in place commercially and for HOAs and
that does include incentives for xeric landscaping.
Mr. Hill asked if landscape plans are required for residential projects. Ms. Neel replied that is not
required there are currently no landscape or irrigation standards for single-family lots; however, staff is
discussing moving forward with some type of standards for those items moving forward.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 71
City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 25, 2021
Mr. Hill asked if a percentage of landscaping is required to be installed in order for a single-family project
to get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Anderson replied there are zoning requirements, particularly
commercially; however, those standards are not as restrictive for single-family homes and backflow
preventers are the only item inspected for single-family homes.
Board Questions and Discussion (continued...)
Mr. Teplitsky asked about the average cost of a single-family water tap and approximate range of
savings if this were to be implemented. Ms. Neel replied she would share that information with the
Board upon doing additional research.
Mr. Teplitsky asked if the fees are being paid to the City. Ms. Neel replied they are being paid to Fort
Collins Utilities. Mr. Teplitsky asked if these changes would mean less revenue for the Utilities. Ms.
Neel replied in the affirmative but noted that would be offset by the lack of need for the water.
Mr. Richards stated it would be helpful for the City to implement a rebate program or system that would
require a homeowner to reapply every couple years for water rate reductions based on maintaining
xeriscaping and that type of thing. He asked if developments could opt for no exterior water taps. Ms.
Neel replied in the affirmative and noted those fees would be dropped to zero should a building be able
to prove no outdoor tap is in use for irrigation purposes. She noted this helps to account for scenarios
wherein the only irrigation is occurring in common spaces.
Ms. Penning asked if there is a conservation benefit of this proposal from the City’s point of view. Ms.
Neel replied in the affirmative and noted it is much more cost effective to conserve than acquire new
supply.
Mr. Teplitsky commented on the high cost of water in Fort Collins being linked to housing affordability.
He concurred with the idea of continuously refining this program.
Ms. Neel commented on Fort Collins being serviced by different water providers who have differing
charges.
Chair Cram stated he is uncomfortable with the number of details that have yet to be addressed and
he noted full build-out of the city’s lots will likely occur in the not-to-distant future. Given this only applies
to new developments, he questioned the future of the program. Ms. Neel replied she would be willing
to come back before the Board with additional detail and noted there is currently an extensive incentive
and conservation program for existing developments. She also commented briefly on existing
programs that address redevelopment.
Mr. Johnson stated he likes where this is headed; however, he was unsure about supporting the
suggested broad-ranging motion that may be too substantial of an approval at this point. Ms. Neel
stated she would be open to recrafting the motion and stated she would like to return before the Board
with specific responses given there is ample time to do so before the consideration of this item goes to
Council.
Ms. Neel commented on the City’s desire to not necessarily require xeric landscaping, but rather to
incentivize its use by lowering maintenance costs.
Chair Cram suggested common areas be more specifically addressed in this presentation. Ms. Neel
replied she did not include that as it is not included in the building review process; however, she noted
the development review process requires an improved landscape plan and matching irrigation plan for
common areas which allows staff to determine an estimated water use for the landscape.
Mr. Anderson noted the Board does not appear to be ready to take any formal action at this time. Chair
Cram suggested tabling this item until additional information could be provided. Members agreed with
that approach.
[Timestamp: 10:07 a.m.]
3. RUCKER HILL MENTORSHIP PROGRAM REQUEST
DESCRIPTION: The purpose for this item is for the Board to consider approval of a request
by Rucker Hill to enter into a Contractor Mentorship Agreement in order to
gain credit toward the project verifications required to qualify for the license
level he seeks.
STAFF: Rich Anderson, Chief Building Official
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 72
City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 25, 2021
Disclosure of Conflicts
Mr. Richards stated he had a conflict of interest as he has worked for Mr. Hill and his company and
they are also close acquaintances.
Mr. Richards left the meeting.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Anderson presented the staff report as written in the agenda packet materials. He stated Mr. Hill
is seeking the Board’s approval for the Building Official to allow him to construct a building for which he
does not have a supervisor certificate or license. He is seeking a mentor for the project which would
allow him to add this project to his list of completed projects and receive credit toward his project
verifications required by the City’s contractor licensing code.
Appellant Arguments
Mr. Hill stated his name for the record and agreed to the remote format of the hearing. He explained
his request and identified his chosen mentor as Paul Bruck of Bruck Enterprises.
Staff Response
Mr. Anderson clarified that the Board had previously approved Mr. Hill had for a mentorship
arrangement on a different permit. If approved, this would be Mr. Hill’s third and final job verification
needed to obtain his requested D1 license. Ms. Manno confirmed that was the case and stated Mr. Hill
currently holds a D2 license.
Board Questions of Staff and Appellant
Ms. Penning expressed support for the mentorship program.
Mr. Massey asked who is ultimately responsible for the project. Mr. Anderson replied the permit would
typically be issued to the mentor, and Mr. Hill would be allowed to perform the work under that. Mr.
Massey expressed support for the mentorship.
Mr. Teplitsky expressed general support but wanted to ensure a fair and consistent approach. He
asked with whom the contract to purchase the house is written. Mr. Hill replied this is a spec home and
typically construction is completed before the home is sold.
Mr. Teplitsky expressed concern about the mentee being encouraged to be the contractor, but his
abilities are limited to the capacity of a supervisor from a City licensing standpoint. Mr. Anderson
suggested this could be addressed by allowing a temporary assignment of another supervisory
certificate to Mr. Hill’s license allowing him to obtain the permit. Mr. Teplitsky agreed with that approach
and suggested looking at these situations on a case-by-case basis in the future.
Board Deliberation
Chair Cram closed the hearing and asked for a motion.
Mr. Johnson moved that the Building Review Board approves the Rucker Hill request, allowing
the Building Official to review, approve and implement this mentorship as discussed, and
empowering the Building Official to monitor and revoke this privilege if the mentor or mentee
are not performing their duties.
Mr. Massey seconded.
Mr. Teplitsky asked to confirm that the permit would be issued in Mr. Hill’s name, but the mentorship
agreement would be in place. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative and stated Staff work out the
logistics. Mr. Johnson stated he is comfortable with allowing the Chief Building Official to resolve the
details.
The motion passed 5-0.
[Timestamp: 10:30 a.m.]
Mr. Richards returned to the meeting.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 73
City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 25, 2021
4. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR LICENSING CODE – CHAPTER 15,
ARTICLE V, SECTION 15-157 (e)
DESCRIPTION: CBO Rich Anderson is seeking the Board’s support of the proposed
changes to a sub-section of the contractor licensing code.
Staff Report
Mr. Anderson presented the staff report explaining the proposal. He read the proposed text for the
Code section and noted if the Chief Building Official is granted this ability, his or her decision would still
be appealable to the Building Review Board.
Public Input
None.
Board Questions and Discussion
Mr. Teplitsky asked why the examination requirement would be waived. Mr. Anderson replied the intent
is to allow individuals the time to pass the exam while still allowing them to start their project. He noted
that language could be stricken, however, and this could only apply toward project verification.
Mr. Teplitsky replied he would prefer the aforementioned path with the exception of significant
circumstances such as testing centers being shut down due to the pandemic, for example.
Mr. Anderson read the code section as currently written and further detailed the proposed changes.
Ms. Penning agreed with Mr. Teplitsky regarding testing requirements.
Mr. Anderson stated he could amend the wording of a motion so that testing remains a requirement.
He also noted all decisions are still appealable to the Board.
[Secretary’s Note: The Board took a short break to allow Mr. Anderson to revise the code language.
A roll call was taken upon resuming the meeting to ensure all members were present.]
The revised Code language was displayed for the Board and read by Mr. Anderson as shown below.
(e) The Building Official may grant a temporary upgrade to an existing supervisor certificate valid
for thirty (30) days a specific project or a specific timeframe determined by the Building Official,
without an examination or the Code required project verification. This approval shall be based upon
specific individual extraordinary circumstances and upon finding that any petitioner for such
certificate is otherwise qualified. The Building Official shall administer the provisions of this
subsection and shall adopt reasonable rules and procedures for such purposes. Any person
seeking such temporary certificate must submit a written request describing in detail the their
experience, specific extraordinary circumstances, showing just cause for justification for such a
certificate the request and a completed application for a supervisor certificate, including all
necessary fees as provided in § 15-158.
Board Deliberation
Based on the Staff Report presented, Ms. Penning moved to allow Building Services to move
forward with the proposed changes to City Code Chapter 15, Article V, Section 15-157(e) and
that Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in support of these changes for Council consideration.
Mr. Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
5. UPDATE ON THE JOINT ADOPTION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY OF CODE
Mr. Anderson gave a brief update the status of this effort.
Board Questions and Discussion
Chair Cram thanked Mr. Anderson for the update and stated he looks forward to our codes being more
aligned with those of our neighboring jurisdictions.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 74
City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 25, 2021
6. UPDATE ON CONTRACTOR LICENSING
Ms. Manno updated the Board on the status of this effort and discussions with Loveland and Larimer
County.
Mr. Anderson detailed his request to examine current license levels and determine what is needed and
what might be missing in licensing regulations by having discussions with Loveland and Larimer
County. He noted this includes looking at what it might take to get landscape irrigation contractors and
medical gas and vacuum contractors licensed.
7. UPDATE ON WATER HEATER PERMITS AND DORA REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Anderson informed the Board he had recently learned that the City had been issuing permits to
HVAC contactors for specific types of water heaters and boilers for which DORA requires a licensed
plumber to do the work. The City has made process changes to remedy this issue to and has notified
all HVAC contractors that these permits would no longer be issued to them.
8. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
The Board will elect a new Chair and Vice Chair.
Mr. Richards asked if Chair Cram was willing to continue as Chair. He responded in the affirmative.
Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none.
The Board voted 6-0 to have Chair Cram continue as Chair.
Chair Cram asked if Mr. Johnson was willing to continue as Vice Chair. He responded in the affirmative.
Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none.
The Board voted 6-0 to have Mr. Johnson continue as Vice Chair.
[Timestamp: 11:12 a.m.]
OTHER BUSINESS
o In light of recent attendance issues, Chair Cram opened a discussion as to whether the current
meeting time for the Board was the best time for everyone.
Ms. Penning replied daytime is difficult for work schedules and either earlier than the current
time or later in the afternoon would be better.
Mr. Teplitsky replied evenings would work and daytime afternoons would be better for him than
the current time.
Mr. Anderson stated staff would prefer to keep meetings during normal working hours if
possible; however, they would accommodate what is best for the Board and any necessary
room scheduling requirements.
Mr. Johnson stated he prefers daytime meetings, but afternoons are better.
Mr. Massey also stated he would prefer keeping the meetings during business hours.
Mr. Richards stated he would prefer business hours meetings as well.
Members and staff had a discussion regarding the difficulty of scheduling in Council Chambers
and other issues related to rescheduling. Members expressed a preference for continuing to
meet online permanently as it is easier for everyone to participate. Chair Cram stated he will
approach the Board’s Council Liaison, Ross Cunniff, to express this preference and discuss
whether that would be possible. Mr. Anderson suggested any members who would like to
continue remotely should also contact the Council Liaison.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 75
.5< 3< ,02+<6 </3<5 < <16<<-9<1/5 6!/,<,<6 6<74 <3---
9/7(<<6'"- </83<6 <5711/36<2/(< 03<6 </3< -, - <-:6<+/,6
3<4+<&/73-<6 <+6 , <6< < <<+
! # #"#
# ## !"# ! #"#! # #
-765<114/8<;<<8/6</<6 </3<
/-<
< <
! <-35/-< <7 *$, < %(<
)-<4+< #3<
###
Rich Anderson
Digitally signed by Rich
Anderson
Date: 2021.05.03 10:37:11
-06'00'
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 76