HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/2024 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular HearingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 August 15, 2024
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities.
Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma
inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios,
programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado).
Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Regular Hearing
August 15, 2024
6:00 PM
Julie Stackhouse, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Adam Sass, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Russell Connelly Fort Collins, Colorado
David Katz
Shirley Peel Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
Planning and Zoning Commission
Hearing Agenda
Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in
person.
Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may
attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95037938312 Individuals participating in
the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on August 15, 2024. Participants should try to sign in
prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. 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 address the Commission.
(Continued on next page)
Packet Pg. 1
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 August 15, 2024
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that
30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak
has ended.
• CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that
are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an
item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full
presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote.
The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived
controversy, and routine administrative actions.
Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone.
Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 950 3793 8312.
The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For
public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak
at that time – 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 Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted
status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email mmatsunaka@fcgov.com.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those
materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged
to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the
Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled,
please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting.
As adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation
with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent.
Packet Pg. 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 August 15, 2024
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z June Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the June 20, 2024, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. Proposed Soil & Xeriscape Landscape Standard Updates
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a
recommendation to City Council regarding proposed changes and
seeking feedback on landscape standards regarding xeriscape, soil
amendments, and irrigation.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF ASSIGNED: Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist, Utilities
Kathryne Marko, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager, Utilities
Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney
3. Water Supply Requirement Fee, Excess Water Use Surcharges and Non-Residential
Allotments
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a
recommendation to City Council regarding proposed changes and seeking
feedback on staff’s analysis and potential options for Water Supply
Requirement and Excess Water Use fees. As water has become more
expensive, the price to buy into the Utilities water rights and infrastructure
has also grown. Utilities is evaluating the best way to charge future
redevelopment and new development.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF ASSIGNED: Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Jill Oropeza, Interim One Water Director
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 15, 2024
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE JUNE 20, 2024 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the June 20, 2024 Planning &
Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft June 20, 2024 P&Z Minutes
Packet Pg. 4
Julie Stackhouse, Chair Virtual Hearing
Adam Sass, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Russell Connelly 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Shirley Peel
Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion &
York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
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.
Regular Hearing
June 20, 2024
Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Katz, Sass, Stackhouse, Connelly, Peel, York
Absent: Shepard
Staff Present: Frickey, Yatabe, Myler, Claypool, Beals, Tatman-Burruss, Haigh, Vidergar and Manno
Chair Stackhouse provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the role of the commission and noted that members are volunteers appointed by
city council. The commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from
the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the land use code. She noted that this
is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
Planning Manager Clay Frickey reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items
will be heard as originally advertised.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None.
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes
DR
A
F
T
Packet Pg. 5
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 2024
Page 2 of 3
Consent Agenda:
None.
Discussion Agenda:
1. Amending the Land Use Code Related to Occupancy
Project Description: This is a request to approve the proposed occupancy ordinances related to compliance with
House Bill 24-1007, Residential Occupancy Limits.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Senior Policy and Project Manager Tatman-Burruss noted this item is a recommendation to City Council which will
be presented at Second Reading on July 2nd. Tatman-Burruss stated this item would change language in the Land
Use Code and Municipal Code to comply with the recently adopted State House Bill 24-1007 which removes the
ability to regulate occupancy based on familial relationship, but does allow limits to be placed for health and safety
standards, and goes into effect on July 1, 2024.
Tatman-Burruss outlined the City’s current occupancy ordinance which limits occupancy of residential dwelling
units to a family of any size plus one additional unrelated occupant, or no more than three unrelated occupants, and
noted enforcement of the ordinance began in 2005. Tatman-Burruss outlined the proposed Land Use Code
wording changes.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Commissioner Katz noted there was some discussion at the work session about changing every reference of
‘family’ to ‘unit’ and asked if there was any conversation at the staff level contemplating whether it makes sense to
change that word every time. Noal Beals, Development Review Manager, replied many of those changes already
occurred with the recently adopted Land Use Code update and most of these changes were just not caught in the
last update. Additionally, Beals noted the terms ‘single-unit’ and ‘multi-unit’ are defined terms in the Code.
Commissioner Katz asked if there will be any type of cross-reference to ‘multi-family’ to aid developers. Beals
replied any search for ‘multi’ would bring up the information.
Commissioner York suggested the word ‘unit’ should be defined in a future update.
Chair Stackhouse suggested information regarding the state laws around group homes should be made readily
available to the public.
Commissioner Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
City Council adopt the proposed Land Use Code amendments to remove the residential occupancy limits.
This recommendation is based upon the information and materials provided at the work session and this
hearing, and the Commission’s discussion. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Vote: 6:0.
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Other Business
None.
DR
A
F
T
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 20, 2024
Page 3 of 3
Adjournment
Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: August 15, 2024.
Clay Frickey, Planning Manager Julie Stackhouse, Chair
DR
A
F
T
Packet Pg. 7
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 15, 2024
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist, Utilities
Kathryne Marko, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager, Utilities
Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT
PROPOSED SOIL & XERISCAPE LANDSCAPE STANDARD UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a recommendation to City Council
regarding proposed changes on landscape standards related to xeriscape, soil
loosening and amendments, and irrigation. Attachments included herein have been amended following feedback
received during and since the August 9 Planning and Zoning work session.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation
2. Soil Loosening and Amendment Ordinance
3. Land Use Code Article 5 – Landscaping and Tree Protection Amendments
4. Land Use Code Article 7 – Definition Amendments
Packet Pg. 8
Headline Copy Goes Here
Water Conservation Specialist,
Utilities
Katie Collins
Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager,
Utilities
Kathryne Marko
08-15-2024
Landscape
Standards –
Soil, Xeriscape
Headline Copy Goes HerePresentation Outline
2
•Recent Impacts
•Summary of Material
Updates
•Key Improvements
•Cost Breakdown
•Timeline
•Discussion
2021-2023 City Council Priorities
Council Priority 19
“Xeriscape – increase rebates and education, less green
lawns with new development”
Land Use Code 5.10.1
Council Priority 28
“Improve tree policies”
Land Use Code 5.10.1
Council Priority 14
“Effective soil amendment policies and compliance
(water usage)”
Municipal Code Ch. 12
1
2
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
Headline Copy Goes HereRecent Impacts to Project
3
New Land Use Code format
•Opportunity for reorganization
Senate Bill 24-005
•Reconfigured irrigated turf limits
City Council feedback
•Postponed tree policies
•Removed day-time watering regulation
•Removed landscape standards for detached houses
Staffing
•Requested two full-time employees through BFO
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Summary of Material Updates
Municipal Code Ch. 12
• Exclude Natural Habitat Buffer Zones
• Removed fee placeholder
• Clarified compliance requirements
Land Use Code Article 5
• Added exception for duplex and ADU building types; clarified exception for streetscapes, etc.
• Clarified 5-year landscape for non-potable systems is specific to Parks
• Reworded mulch subsection to meet intent
• Added exception for dedicated tree irrigation in certain scenarios
Land Use Code Article 7
• Supplemented definition of invasive species
3
4
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
Headline Copy Goes HereSoils
5
Municipal Code, Ch. 12
• Clearly define thresholds for applicability
•Residential seeking Certificate of Occupancy when
> 1,000 sq.ft. of plants will be installed
•Non-residential requiring development review when
> 1,000 sq.ft. of plants will be installed
•Exclude Natural Habitat Buffer Zones
• Define standards for soil compaction and soil quality
• Remove barriers for considering existing soil and/or plant type
Program-related
• Implement comprehensive field inspection program for all sites
(Budget Offer 7.34, Soils FTE) $97,620
Headline Copy Goes HereXeriscape and Irrigation
6
Land Use Code 5.10.1
• Identifies specific purposes acceptable for high-water grass
installation
• Requires landscape water need not to exceed annual average of
11 gallons per square foot
• Restricts installing artificial turf except for athletic sports fields
• Requires dedicated surface/subsurface irrigation to all trees
• Re-organized to be more concise and predictable
Program-related
• Continue to promote programs and provide education
• Implement comprehensive landscape review processes (74.2
Senior Inspector, Zoning/Water Conservation – 1.0 FTE, $87,275
ongoing cost
NC0
5
6
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Xeriscape Standards – Cost
Water-wise
cost
difference
over 20 years
Total20-year cost to
irrigate**
Estimated
Water
Supply Req.*
Design &
Install. cost
Total Landscape Area
(% high-water grass)
Property, Landscape
Type
- $15,536
$260,597$68,067$82,530$110,00026,000
(80%)Commercial, typical
$245,061$53,086$51,975$140,00026,000
(30%)Commercial, water-wise
* Fort Collins Utilities 2023 Rates. Commercial assumes irrigation-only tap.
** Based on Fort Collins Utilities 10-year rates forecast. Commercial water bill estimate is based on 1-1/2” irrigation-only tap.
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Timeline
1 2
4
3
5
RESEARCH &
OUTREACH
CODE
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPTIONIMPLEMENTATION
First Reading of Code Ordinances
Sept. 3, 2024
First Reading of
‘25-’26 Budget
Nov 5, 2024
Streetscape
Standards Update
LUC Phase 2
Project
7
8
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Suggested Motion
I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council approve
the amendments to Land Use Code Sections 5.10.1 and 7.2.2 and City Code
Sections 12-130 through 21-134 in substantially the same content and form as
proposed by staff and considered by the Commission on August ___, 2024.
OR
I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council approve
the amendments to Land Use Code Sections 5.10.1 and 7.2.2 and City Code
Sections 12-130 through 21-134 in substantially the same content and form as
proposed by staff and considered by the Commission on August ___, 2024, and
including the following amendments: (insert specific language to be added or
deleted).
Headline Copy Goes Here
Discussion
10
9
10
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 13
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Suggested Motion
I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the
amendments to Land Use Code Sections 5.10.1 and 7.2.2 and City Code Sections
12-130 through 21-134 in substantially the same content and form as proposed by
staff and considered by the Commission on August ___, 2024.
OR
I move that the Water Commission recommend City Council approve the
amendments to Land Use Code Sections 5.10.1 and 7.2.2 and City Code Sections
12-130 through 21-134 in substantially the same content and form as proposed by
staff and considered by the Commission on August ___, 2024, and including the
following amendments: (insert specific language to be added or deleted).
11
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 14
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. XXX, 2024
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS TO REVISE SOIL LOOSENING AND
AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS
A. The City has historically imposed certain requirements related to the
loosening of soil areas and incorporation of appropriate soil amendments in areas to be
planted in order to, among other things, enhance soil water storage capacity, improve soil
conditions for plant growth, increase water infiltration, and reduce water runoff.
B. Such requirements are located in Chapter 12, Division 2 of City Code.
C. Pursuant to City Council priority 14 (Effective soil amendment policies and
compliance (water usage)) and direction form City Council at a January 10, 2023, work
session, and City staff completed a review of such existing requirements.
D. City staff have proposed revisions to such requirements as set forth below.
In light of the foregoing recitals, which the Council hereby makes and adopts as
determinations and findings, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Chapter 12, Article VII., Division 2 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Division 2 Soil Amendment
Sec. 12-130. Purpose.
The provisions of this Section are intended to enhance soil water storage capacity,
improve conditions for plant growth and reduce water runoff.
Sec. 12-131. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
Certificate of occupancy shall mean a certificate of occupancy as described in the building
code of the City as adopted in Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, or any other document
issued by the City to authorize occupation of new improvements constructed pursuant to
a building permit.
Soil amendments shall mean compost, peat, aged manure or such other organic or
inorganic material as may be approved by the Utilities Executive Director as appropriate
to meet the objectives of this Section.
Top soil shall mean a friable mixture of sand, silt and clay particles, each within the
following limits:
Sand (0.05- 2.00 mm) Maximum 75% Minimum 20%
Silt (0.002-0.05 mm) Maximum 60% Minimum 5%
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 15
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-2-
Clay (less than 0.002 mm) Maximum 30% Minimum 5%
Top soil shall have an organic matter content of greater than five (5) percent and a pH
between 6.0 and 8.0, and shall be free from noxious weeds and roots, salts, clay lumps,
any nonsoil materials such as rock, concrete, brick chips, or building materials, foreign
matter, and any chemical, biological or radiological contaminants.
Sec. 12-132. Regulations.
(a) Except as otherwise provided below, the holder of any building permit shall, as a
condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, prepare any area in which any
plant materials, including but not limited to grass, seed, flowers, shrubs or trees, are
expected or intended to be installed, prior to installation of any plant materials in that area,
as follows:
(1) The soil in such areas shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less
than eight (8) inches; and
(2) Soil amendments shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of such
areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method,
at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of area to be planted, unless at least four (4) inches of loose
top soil has been placed on the area after completion of construction activity on
top of not less than four (4) inches of loosened subgrade soils. Documentation of
the content and quantity of the soil amendments and top soil placed in an area,
prepared by the commercial source of the material or a qualified soils testing
laboratory, shall be submitted in connection with the certification required in
Subsection 12-132(b) below.
(b) Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the prospective recipient of
such certificate of occupancy shall submit written certification to the Utilities Executive
Director that all planted areas, or areas to be planted, have been thoroughly loosened
and the soil amended, consistent with the requirements set forth in this Section.
(c) In the event that the Utilities Executive Director determines that compliance with
this Section is rendered unreasonably difficult by weather or seasonal conditions, the
Utilities Executive Director may temporarily suspend the application of this requirement,
contingent upon the provision by the prospective recipient of such arrangements,
guaranties or assurances as the Utilities Executive Director determines to be adequate
to ensure compliance.
(d) In the event that the Utilities Executive Director determines that compliance with
this Section in a specific area is unreasonably difficult as a result of site conditions such
as, for example, an excessively steep gradient or a very narrow side lot, the Utilities
Executive Director may waive the application of this requirement for such area.
(e) The Utilities Executive Director or City Manager may inspect any property in order
to determine compliance with the requirements of this Section as a condition of issuance
of any certificate of occupancy.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 16
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-3-
(f) Payment of any administrative fee established by the City Manager for the purpose
of recovering the costs of administering and enforcing the requirements of this Section
shall be required as a condition of issuance of any building permit, excluding any building
permit where it can be shown that no areas within the project limits will be disturbed by
construction activities and planted with vegetation.
Division 2 - Soil Loosening and Amendment
Sec. 12-130. - Purpose.
The provisions of this Section are intended to enhance soil water storage capacity,
improve soil conditions for plant growth, increase water infiltration, reduce water runoff,
and improve stormwater quality.
Sec. 12-131. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
Certificate of occupancy shall mean a certificate of occupancy as described in the building
code of the City as adopted in Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, or any other document
issued by the City to authorize occupation of new improvements constructed pursuant to
a building permit.
Plant materials shall mean living vegetation.
Soil amendments shall mean materials added to soil to improve soil properties for the
purpose of optimal plant growth. Soil amendments may include: gypsum, limestone,
sulfur, aluminum sulfates, humates, organic matter, mulches, compost, soil conditioners,
mycorrhizal inoculum, or bio-stimulants or such other as appropriate to meet the
objectives of this Division.
Soil testing shall mean technical analysis by a professional soil testing lab to determine
composition and characteristics of soil.
Top soil shall mean a friable mixture of sand, silt and clay particles, each within the
following limits:
Sand (0.05- 2.00 mm) Maximum 75% Minimum 20%
Silt (0.002-0.05 mm) Maximum 60% Minimum 5%
Clay (less than 0.002 mm) Maximum 30% Minimum 5%
Topsoil shall be free from building, construction, or other foreign materials, and any
chemical, biological or radiological contaminants. Topsoil shall also be within the
following limits:
Organic Material Minimum 3% Maximum 10%
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 17
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-4-
(Organic Material /
Sample)
pH 6 8
Electrical Conductivity
(millimhos / cm)
0 2.0
Topsoil Stockpiling Practices shall mean those practices to preserve the quality of topsoil
comprising of the top 4-6 inches of existing soils, stored in piles from 2-4 feet high, and
for a duration of less than 12 months.
Sec. 12-132 Soil Loosening and Amendment Requirements.
(a) Applicability. The requirements of this Division shall apply to any property outside
of a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone defined in the Land Use Code that:
(1) is included any development review process under the Land Use Code and
has over 1,000 square feet of area where plant materials will be installed; or
(2) requires a building permit that is associated with a certificate of occupancy
and has over 1,000 square feet of area where plant materials will be installed.
(b) Soil Loosening Standards. Except as provided in this subsection (b) or pursuant to
Section 12-134, in any locations where plant materials are expected or intended to be
installed, soils shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of at least eight inches, except as
follows:
(1) In areas where new tree plantings are expected or intended to occur, the
soil shall be loosened to the extent of, roughly two to three times the diameter of
the planted root ball and minimum of six feet extending radially from the tree trunk
and loosened to a depth equivalent to the root ball.
(2) Soil shall not be loosened within a certain distance from the face of trees
based on the tree trunk’s diameter at breast height as set forth in the following
table.
Tree Trunk
Diameter at Breast
Height (Inches)
0” to
9”
10” to 14” 15” to 19” Over 19”
Area From Face of
Tree with No Soil
Loosening (feet)
5’ 10’ 12’ 15’
(3) In any areas where existing vegetation remains and was not compacted or
disturbed from construction or related activities, the soil shall only be loosened with
an aeration or no-till method.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 18
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-5-
(c) Soil Amendment Standards.
(1) Except as provided in this subsection (c) or pursuant to Section 12-134, in
any locations where plant materials are expected or intended to be installed, the
soil shall be amended at a rate of at least three cubic yards of soil amendment
over 1,000 square feet, which shall be well mixed into the top four inches of the
soil.
(2) Soils amendments shall not be required for the following:
a. In areas where new or existing trees are located, and no other
vegetation will be under the tree canopy.
b. In areas where Low Impact Development stormwater quality
infrastructure is located.
c. Existing soils that are topsoil, as proven by soil testing. Such topsoil
may be stripped and stored using Topsoil Stockpiling Practices for
reapplication to the site. When reapplied, at least four inches of reclaimed
topsoil shall be applied.
Sec. 12-133 Compliance and Fees.
(a) Compliance.
(1a) The requirements of this Division shall be met prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy. Except pursuant to Section 12-134, no certificate of occupancy
shall be issued until compliance is established pursuant to this subsection.
(2b) Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the Utilities Executive Director, which
shall include, at minimum: any soil testing results and any related documentation; and
verification documentation of the completion of the soil loosening and amendment
requirements of this Division and any soil testing results and related documentation, if
applicable. The Utilities Executive Director may establish forms for this purpose.
(3c) The Utilities Executive Director may enter any property subject to this Division for
the purposes of evaluating whether the property is in compliance.
(4d) The Utilities Executive Director shall review the proof of compliance and, in writing,
approve, approve with conditions, or deny that the soil loosening and amendment
requirements of this Division have been met.
(b) Fees. The Utilities Executive Director may establish reasonable fees on properties
subject to this Division to recover costs associated with enforcing this Division.
Sec. 12-134 Variance Procedure for Soil Loosening and Amendment Requirements.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 19
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-6-
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Division, pursuant to this section, the Utilities
Executive Director may grant variance requests to modify: the soil loosening standards
of Section 12-132(b); the soil amendment standards of Section 12-132(c); and the
compliance deadline of Section 12-133(a).
(1) An applicant seeking such a variance shall complete and file with the
Utilities Executive Director an application accompanied by any required filing fee
as determined by the Utilities Executive Director. The Utilities Executive Director
shall prepare a form of such application identifying for the applicant all of the
necessary information for the Utilities Executive Director to evaluate the variance
request, which shall include, at minimum, an analysis of the requested variance.
(2) The Utilities Executive Director may, following any appropriate
investigations including requests for additional information from the applicant,
grant a variance request, including subject to terms and conditions, to modify the
soil loosening standards of Section 12-132(b), the soil amendment standards of
Section 12-132(c), or the compliance deadline of Section 12-133(a) as applied to
a particular property if the Utilities Executive Director finds that all of the following
conditions are met:
a. The variance is appropriate based on all known facts, will
substantially further the purposes of this Division, and is in the best interests
of the City.
b. Where the variance request is to modify the soil loosening standards
of Section 12-132(b) or the soil amendment standards of Section 12-132(c)
for the particular property, the modification is needed to: address unique
soil, hydrological, or topographical conditions of the property; or to facilitate
native plants.
c. Where the variance request is to modify the compliance deadline of
Section 12-133(a), the modification is needed due to weather or seasonal
conditions, labor shortages, or needs of the plant materials to be installed.
(3) If the variance request is granted, the variance shall be set forth in the
writing and shall include any terms and conditions the Utilities Executive Director
deems appropriate to further the purposes of this Division. If the variance includes
a modification of the soil loosening standards of Section 12-132(b) or the soil
amendment standards of Section 12-132(c), the modified standards shall be
stated. If the variance includes a modification of the compliance deadline of
Section 12-133(a), a new deadline shall be stated and terms and conditions may
include the City’s right to withhold other permits sought by the applicant until the
particular property is in compliance with the variance. Failure of the applicant to
comply with a granted variance shall be deemed a violation of City Code pursuant
to Section 1-15.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 20
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT – August 14, 2024 – DRAFT
-7-
If the variance request is denied, the Utilities Executive Director shall notify the applicant
in writing of the denial and state the reasons therefor.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading on [fill in first reading date
MONTH DAY, YEAR], and approved on second reading for final passage on [fill in second
reading date MONTH DAY, YEAR].
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
Effective Date: [date]
Approving Attorney: [name]
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 21
5-- 0 - | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
General Development
and Site Design
ARTICLE 5
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 22
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
5-1 | ARTICLE 5 : CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND U SE CODE
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 23
5-0 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DIVISION 5.1 APPLICABILITY
5.1.1 Applicability
DIVISION 5.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
5.2.1 Affordable housing
DIVISION 5.3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
5.3.1 Residential developments
5.3.2 Multi-building and mix of housing
5.3.3 Neighborhood centers
5.3.4 Small neighborhood parks
5.3.5 Garage Design
5.3.6 Second kitchen
DIVISION 5.4 DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
5.4.1 Development infrastructure
5.4.2 Development improvements
5.4.3 Engineering design standards
5.4.4 Plat and development plan standards
5.4.5 Master Street Plan
5.4.6 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
5.4.7 Street pattern and connectivity standards
5.4.8 Emergency access
5.4.9 Bus stop design standards
5.4.10 Transportation level of service requirements
DIVISION 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
5.5.1 Noise and vibration
5.5.2 Hazardous materials
5.5.3 Glare or heat
5.5.4 Solar access, orientation, and shading
5.5.5 Parks and trails
DIVISION 5.6 ENVIROMENTAL SITE SUITABILITY
5.6.1 Natural habitats and features
5.6.2 Air quality
5.6.3 Water quality
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 24
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
5-1 | ARTICLE 5 : CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
5.6.4 Water hazards
5.6.5 Hazards
5.6.6 Health risks
5.6.7 Other jurisdiction Environmental compliance
DIVISION 5.7 COMPACT URBAN GROWTH STANDARDS
5.7.1 Compact Urban Growth
5.7.2 Contiguity
5.7.3 Adequate public facilities
5.7.4 Lots
DIVISION 5.8 HISTORIC
5.8.1 Historic, landmark preservation and cultural resources
DIVISION 5.9 BUILDING PLACEMENT AND SITE DESIGN
5.9.1 Access, circulation and parking
DIVISION 5.10 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION
5.10.1 Landscaping and tree protection
5.10.2 Buffering Between Residential and Inudstrial Industrial Uses
5.10.3 Buffering Between Buildings with Occupiable Space and Oil and Gas
DIVISION 5.11 TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURES
5.11.1 Trash and recycling enclosures
DIVISION 5.12 EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING
5.12.1 Exterior site lighting
DIVISION 5.13 YARDS AND SETBACKS
5.13.1 Yards
5.13.2 Setbacks
DIVISION 5.14 OCCUPANCY LIMITS
5.14.1 Occupancy limits; increasing the number of persons allowed
DIVISION 5.15 BUILDING STANDARDS
5.15.1 Building and project Compatibilty
5.15.2 Mixed-use, institutional and commercial buildings
5.15.3 Large Retail Establishments
5.15.4 Convenience Shopping center
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 25
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
5-1 | ARTICLE 5 : CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
DIVISION 5.16 SIGNS
5.16.1 Signs generally.
5.16.2 Permanent signs
5.16.3 Temporary signs
5.16.4 Nonconforming signs and administration
5.16.5 sign maintenance
DIVISION 5.17 WATER ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS
5.17.1 Purpose.
5.17.2 Applicability.
5.17.3 Application.
5.17.4 Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Established Potable Water
Supply Entities
5.17.5 Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Other Potable Water
SUpply Entities.
5.17.6 Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Non-Potable Water Supply
Entities.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 26
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
5-1 | ARTICLE 5 : CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 5
General Development and Site Design
DIVISION 5 .10 LANDSC APING AND TREE PROTECTION
5.10.1 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION
(A) Applicability. This Section shall apply applies to all development plans that include landscaping and/or
new or existing trees (except for development on existing lots for single- and two-unit detached
dwellings and accessory dwelling units) within the designated "limits of development" ("LOD") and
natural habitat buffer zones established according to Section 5.6.1 (Natural Habitats and Features).
(B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of a landscape, and tree protection, and
irrigation plan plans (hereinafter “landscape plan”) that ensure demonstrates a comprehensive approach
to landscaping that incorporates City plans for the appearance and function of the neighborhood or
district, the development, buildings, and the pedestrian environment, while creating or maintaining a
diverse significant canopy cover and using water efficiently.is created, diversified and maintained so that
all associated social and environmental benefits are maximized to the extent reasonably feasible. These
benefits include reduced erosion and stormwater runoff, impro ved water conservation, air pollution
mitigation, reduced glare and heat build-up, increased aesthetics, and improved continuity within and
between developments. Trees planted in appropriate spaces also provide screening and may mitigate
potential conflicts between activity areas and other site elements while enhancing outdoor spaces, all of
which add to a more resilient urban forest.
(C) General Standard. All developments that include landscaping and/or new or existing trees shall must
submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and, if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation
plan, that incorporates City plans for the appearance and function of the development while creating or
maintaining a diverse significant canopy cover and using water efficiently and that promotes reductions
in outdoor water use by selecting low water plant materials, improving soil, and exploring non -potable
irrigation sources. All landscaping, tree protection and planting, and irrigation must be installed
according to approved landscape plans. For the Director or Director’s designated staff focused in the
applicable area of forestry, landscape, or irrigation to approve a landscape plan it must comply with the
standards throughout this Section and must: (1) reinforces and extends any existing patterns of outdoor
spaces and vegetation where practicable, (2) supports functional purposes such as spatial definition,
visual screening, creation of privacy, management of microclimate or drainage, (3) enhances th e
appearance of the development and neighborhood, (4) protects significant trees, natural systems and
habitat, (5) enhances the pedestrian environment, (6) identifies all landscape areas, (7) identifies all
landscaping elements within each landscape area, and (8) meets or exceeds the standards of this
Section.
(1) Protect existing trees and natural features;
(2) Provide a diverse and resilient tree canopy cover;
(3) Reinforce and extend existing patterns of outdoor spaces and vegetation;
(4) Enhance the pedestrian environment of the development and neighborhood;
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 27
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-78 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(5) Create visual interest year-round, complementing the architecture of a development and attracting
attention to building entrances and other focal points;
(6) Reinforce spatial definition of outdoor spaces and circulation patterns;
(7) Screen areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements;
(8) Lend privacy where appropriate;
(9) Promote compatibility and buffering between and among dissimilar land uses; and
(10) Ensure long term health of landscaping through best practices for maintenance and irrigation.
[NOTE: This heading for Subsection (D) was previously Subsection (E).]
(D) Landscape StandardsPlanning and Design. All development applications that include landscaping
and/or new or existing trees shall must include landscape plans that meet the following minimum
standards: in this Subsection.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(1) was previously Subsection (D).]
(1) Tree PlantingStandards.
(a) Purposes. These standards are meant to All developments shall establish groves and belts of
trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are
located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial
urban tree canopy in available and appropriate spaces. Urban tree canopies are used to define
and connect spaces and corridors or other features along the street. All the following elements
contribute to this. Useful urban tree canopy benefits include:
(I) Beautification;
(II) Reducing erosion and stormwater runoff;
(III) Mitigating air pollution;
(IV) Reducing glare and heat build-up;
(V) Aiding water conservation in irrigated landscaping;
(VI) Creating continuity within and between individual developments; The groves and
belts may also be combined or interspersed
(VII) wWith other landscape areas in remaining portions of elements, screening and
mitigating potential conflicts between activity areas and other site elements ; the
development to
(VIII) accommodateAccommodating views and functions such as active recreation and
storm drainage;. and
(IX) Defining and enhancing outdoor spaces.
(b) Minimum Plantings/DescriptionTree Stocking Requirements. All developments must
establish groupings of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in landscape
areas in the landscape plan. These tree standards stocking requirements outline the required
at least a minimum tree canopy and are in addition to requirements for preserving existing
trees, parking lot landscape requirements and required tree mitigation. These stocking
requirementsbut are not intended to limit additional tree plantings in any remaining portions
of the development. Groves and belts of trees shall be rRequired as followstree stocking
comprises:
(I) pParking lot landscaping in accordance with the parking lot landscaping standards
as set forth in this Section and in Section 5.9.1, Access, Circulation and Parking;
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 28
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-79 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(II) sStreet tree planting in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards or otherand the street tree planting as defined in sSubsection (2)(b) or
(c) (D)(1)(e) below;
(III) "full tTree stocking" shall be requiredplanting in all landscape areas within fifty
(50)sixty-five (65) feet of any building or structure as further described below.
Landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and
dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all areas of high use or high
visibility sides of any building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at
least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and contain at least fifty-
five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area;, except that any
(IV) planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen (16) square feet.
Planting cutouts, planters, or other landscape areas for tree planting shall be
provided within any walkway that is twelve (12)ten (10) feet or greater in width
adjoining a vehicle use area that is not covered with an overhead fixture or
canopy that would prevent growth and maturity. Any tree planting cutouts in
walkways must be at least thirty-two (32) square feet, except in the Downtown
District where tree cutouts shall mimic or exceed existing design or character to
adjacent Street Frontage Types as provided in Section 2.4.1;
(V) Full tree stocking under this Subsection (D)(1)(b) shall mean formal or informal
groupings of trees planted according to the following spacing dimensions
depending on species and desired degree of shading of the ground plane:
Table 5.10.1-(1) – Spacing
Tree Type Minimum/Maximum Spacing
Canopy shade trees 30'—40' spacing
Coniferous evergreens 20'—40' spacing
Ornamental trees 20'—40' spacing
(VI) Exact tree locations and spacings may be adjusted at the option of the applicant
to support patterns of use, views and circulation as long as the minimum tree
planting stocking requirement under this Subsection (D)(1)(b) and the minimum
species diversity requirement under Subsection (D)(1)(c) isare met;. and
(VII) Canopy shade trees shall must constitute at least fifty (50) percent (50%) of all
tree plantings. Trees required in subparagraphsSubsections (a) or (b) (D)(1)(b)(I)
or (II) above may be used to contribute to this standard. If additional trees
beyond the minimum tree stocking and mitigation requirements under this Section
are planted, the additional trees must meet the minimum species diversity
requirement but are not subject to the fifty percent (50%) canopy shade
requirement.
[NOTE: This Subsection(D)(1)(c) was previously (D)(3).]
(c) Minimum Tree Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and
eventual uniform senescence on a development site within a landscape planned area or in the
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 29
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-80 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required, and extensive monocultures are
prohibited. No more than three (3) consecutive trees of the same cultivar or variety may be
planted in a row, including corners and groupings. The following minimum requirements shall
apply to any development landscape plan.
Table 5.10.1-(2) – Species Diversity Table
Number of trees on
site
Maximum percentage of any one
species
10—19 50%40%
20—39 33%30%
40—59 25%30%
60 or more 15%10%
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(1)(d) was previously (D)(4).]
(d) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes . The City Forester shall provide a recommended list of
trees, which shall be that are acceptable to satisfy the requirements for landscape plans,
including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street trees.
(I) Minimum Size. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as
provided in subparagraph (5) Subsection (D)(1)(d)(II) below):
Table 5.10.1-(3) – Minimum Size Table
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent
Evergreen Tree 6.0' height balled and burlapped or equivalent
Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent
Shrubs 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design
intent or 1 gallon may be permitted if planting
within the Critical Root Zone of existing trees
Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the approved landscape plan
are exempt from the foregoing size requirements.
(II) Reduced Minimum Sizes for Affordable Housing Projects. In any
affordable housing project, the following minimum sizes shall be required:
Table 5.10.1-(4) – Affordable Housing Minimum Tree Size Table
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree 1.0" caliper container or equivalent
Evergreen Tree 4.0' height container or equivalent
Ornamental Tree 1.0" caliper container or equivalent
Shrubs 1 gallon
Canopy Shade Tree as a street
tree on a Local or Collector street
only
1.25" caliper container or equivalent
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 30
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-81 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(1)(e) was previously D(2).]
(e) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right -of-way, after
first obtaining a street tree permit (free of charge) from the Forestry Division as stated in Fort
Collins Municipal Code Article 3, Section 27-31. eExcept as described in subparagraph
Subsection (D)(1)(e)(bII) below, the street tree plantings in connection with the development
by one (1) or more of the methodsshall occur as described in subparagraphsSubsections
(D)(1)(e)(aI) through (dV) below:
(I) Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade
trees shall be planted at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing (averaged along the
entire front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such parkway areas. If
two (2) or more consecutive residential lots along a street each measure between
forty (40) and sixty (60) feet in street frontage width, one (1) tree per lot may be
substituted for the thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing requirement. Such street trees
shall be placed at least eight (8)four (4) feet away from the edges of driveways
and alleys, and forty (40) feet away from any streetlight and to the extent
reasonably feasible, be positioned at evenly spaced intervals and separated from
streetlights and utilities lines as required in Subsection (D)(1)(f) below.
(II) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a non-standard way or in a
manner that fails to comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ,
canopy shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from three (3) to
seven (7) feet behind the sidewalk at the spacing intervals as required in
sSubsection (a) (D)(1)(e)(I) above. Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the
street and is ten (10) feet or more in width, or extends from the curb to the
property line, canopy shade trees shall be established in planting cutout areas of
at least sixteen (16)thirty-two (32) square feet at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing,
except in the Downtown District where tree cutouts shall mimic or exceed existing
design or character to adjacent Street Frontage Types as provided in Section
2.4.1.
(III) Ornamental trees shall be planted in substitution for the required canopy shade
trees required in subsection (D)(2)(a) and (b) above where overhead lines, and
fixtures, and underground utilities may prevent normal growth and maturity.
Ornamental trees shall be placed at least fifteen (15) feet away from any
streetlight as required in Subsection (D)(1)(f) below.
(IV) Wherever existing ash trees (Fraxinus species) are in the adjoining street right-of-
way, the applicant shall must coordinate and obtain an onsite analysis with the
City Forester to determine replacement canopy shade trees either through
shadow planting or other emerald ash borer mitigation methods. The City Forester
is available also to recommend shadow planting or emerald ash borer mitigation
methods for existing ash trees on private property.
(V) In any multi-phase development plan, all street trees per phase must be planted
at once rather than on a lot by lot over time to the maximum extent feasible; and
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 31
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-82 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
such planting may only occur after the irrigation is functioning and right-of-way
turfgrass, if present, is established. The City Forester, through conversations with
the landscape contractor and applicant, makes the final decision as to what timing
is feasible. Street trees must only be planted during shoulder seasons, March
through June, and September through November, to avoid the hottest and coldest
periods of the year.
[NOTE This Subsection (D)(1)(f) was previously Subsection (K).]
(f) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The following
list sets forth mMinimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic
control device separations are shown below. Exceptions to these requirements may occur, as
approved by the Director, where utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their
standard designated locations, as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control
device separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street
trees. Required separations are:
(I) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between
ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 35.10.1-(1).)
Figure 35.10.1-(1) – Tree/Streetlight Separations
(II) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs
and devices.
(III) Ten (10) feet between trees and water or sewer mains.
(IV) Six (6) feet between trees and water or sewer service lines.
(V) Four (4) feet between trees and gas lines.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 32
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-83 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(VI) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-widestandard abutting
utility easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit may be required to
protect underground electric lines.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(2) was previously (E)(2).]
(2) Landscape Area Treatment. Landscape areas shall include all areas on the site, including
entryways, that are not covered by buildings, structures, paving , or impervious surface, or other
outdoor areas including play areas, plaza spaces, patios, and the like. Landscape areas shall consist
only of landscaping, which includes any combination of living plants, and may include built features
such as fences, benches, works of art, reflective pools, fountains, or the like. Landscaping shall also
include irrigation systems, mulches, topsoil, soil preparation, revegetation, and the preservation,
protection, and replacement of existing trees. The selection and location of turf, ground cover
(including shrubs, grasses, perennials, flowerbeds and slope retention), and pedestrian paving and
other landscaping elements shall be used to prevent erosion and meet the functional and visual
purposes such as defining spaces, accommodating and directing circulation patterns, managing
visibility, attracting attention to building entrances and other focal points, and visually integrating
buildings with the landscape area and with each other.
(a) Coverage. Not counting trees, more than 50% of a landscape area must be covered with living
plants at maturity. The Director may approve an exception to this requirement if a determination
is made that an area is too small for living landscape material and for irrigation to be reasonably
feasible.
(b) Grouping and Placement. A landscape plan must group landscape materials based upon
hydrozone and irrigated accordingly (as described under Subsection(D)(3) of this Section and
based on light (e.g. full sun, shade, partial sun) requirements.
(c) Irrigated Turf grass. Irrigated turf grass areas may only be planted according to planned use,
only in areas or spaces used for recreation or for civic or community purposes. Such purposes may
include playgrounds, sports fields or other athletics programming, picnic grounds, amphitheaters,
portions of parks, and playing areas of golf courses. Such purposes do not include, and irrigated
turfgrass with a high water requirement must not be planted in, street rights-of-way, parking lots,
or medians, and transportation corridors. Any landscape plan that includes irrigated turf grass
must indicate the intended use of all turf grass areas.
(I) Irrigated turf grass with a high water requirement may only be planted for
recreation, civic or community purposes and is limited to High-use areas shall be
planted with irrigated turf grassof heavy foot traffic. Irrigated turf grass with a
high water requirement refers to high- or moderate-hydrozone sod forming
grasses including species such as Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), and turf-
type tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and their varieties and cultivars. See the
hydrozone table (Table 5.10.1-(5)) at Subsection (D)(3) of this Section for
descriptions of hydrozones.Nonirrigated shortgrass prairie grasses or other
adapted grasses that have been certified as Xeriscape landscaping may be
established in remote, low-use, low visibility areas.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 33
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-84 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(II) Irrigated turf grass shall not be installed in contiguous areas smaller than seventy -
five (75) square feet to avoid water waste that occurs through overspray on small
areas.
(III) Irrigated turf grass species with a low water requirement may be located on a site
as appropriate for the species and planned activity. Well-maintained irrigated turf
grass with a low or very-low water requirement according to hydrozones in Table
5.10.1-(5) at Subsection (D)(3) of this Section or the City of Fort Collins Plant List
and well-maintained regionally adapted or native grass species are not subject to
the irrigated turf grass limits in Subsection (D)(2)(c)(I) of this Section.
(d) Artificial Turf and Plants. No artificial turf or artificial plants may be included in any landscape
plan or installed. The Director may approve an exception to allow artificial turf to be installed on
an athletic field of play if the installation is not prohibited under C.R.S. 37-99-103 and if the
Director determines the use is appropriate, the use does not add pollutants that could cause
environmental impairment, and alternatives are not reasonable. Any exception to allow artificial
turf must be noted in the landscape plan.
(e) Ecologically Sensitive Areas. Non-native plants must not be planted near ecologically sensitive
areas, such as natural habitat buffer zones (NHBZs) and natural areas, if the species or variety is
deemed by the Director to be likely to spread into that sensitive area.
(f) Mulched Planting bBeds.
(I) Shrub and ground cover planting beds shall be separated from irrigated turf grass
with a high water requirement by with edging or other physical divider or a
commitment on the landscape plan to maintain a shovel-cut edge to define the
space that is being maintained. and
(II) Shrub and ground cover planting beds shall have the majority of exposed soil
areas covered with mulch.
(III) Mulch must be organic or inorganic mulch. To the extent that any inorganic mulch
is not used, the total coverage area of any single type of inorganic mulch must
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total landscape areas. Mulching around
trees is excluded from this fifty percent (50%) calculation.
(IV) Synthetic-based inorganic mulches, including plastic- or rubber-based mulches are
not permitted.
(g) Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high-use or high-visibility
areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5)seven (7) feet wide placed
directly along at least fifty (50) percent of such walls, except :
(I) wWhere pedestrian paving abuts a commercial building with trees and/or other
landscaping in cutouts or planting beds along the outer portion of the pedestrian
space away from the building;
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 34
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-85 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(II) Where exceptional situations unique to the development hinder the applicant's
ability to comply with fire code or building code requirements while also adhering
to a strict application of this standard.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(2)(h) was previously (E)(1).]
(h) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In situations where the Director
determines that the arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately mitigate
conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses, site elements or building designs,
one (1) or more of the following landscape buffering techniques shall be used to mitigate the
conflicts:
(I) Separation and screening with plant material: planting dense stands of evergreen
trees, canopy shade trees, ornamental trees or shrubs;
(II) Integration with plantings: incorporating trees, vines, planters or other plantings
into the architectural theme of buildings and their outdoor spaces to subdue
differences in architecture and bulk and avoid harsh edges;
(III) Establishing privacy: establishing vertical landscape elements to screen views into
or between windows and defined outdoor spaces where privacy is important, such
as where larger buildings are proposed next to side or rear yards of smaller
buildings;
(IV) Visual integration of fences or walls: providing plant material in conjunction with a
screen panel, arbor, garden wall, privacy fence or security fence to avoid the
visual effect created by unattractive screening or security fences; and/or
(V) Landform shaping: utilizing berming or other grade changes to alter views,
subdue sound, change the sense of proximity and channel pedestrian movement.
(i) Street Parkways, Rights-of-Way, Transportation Corridors. All adjoining street parkways,
street rights-of-way, and transportation corridors shall be landscaped in connection with the
development in accordance with this Division and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
and in accordance with state law, including C.R.S. 37-99-103.
(j) Slopes. Retaining walls, slope revetment or other acceptable devices integrated with plantings
shall be used to stabilize slopes that are steeper than 3:1. If structural soil tests performed on the
subject soils indicate steeper slopes are stable without the above required protection, then the
maximum slope allowed without the above required protection may be increased to the maximum
stated in the soils report or 2:1, whichever is less steep.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(2)(k) was previously Subsection (L).]
(k) Visual Clearance or Sight Distance Triangle. Except as provided in Subparagraphs (1) and
(2) Subsections (D)(2)(k)(I) and (II) below, a visual clearance triangle, free of any structures or
landscape elements over twenty-four (24) inches in height, shall be maintained at street
intersections and driveways in conformance with the standards contained in the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 35
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-86 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(I) Fences shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and shall be of an open
design.
(II) Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance triangle
provided that the lowest branch of any such tree shall be at least six (6) feet from
grade.
(l) Exceptions.
(I) Agricultural Use. If outdoor space is maintained in active agricultural use, the
landscape surfaces and ground cover standards above shall not apply.
(II) Streetscapes attached to a property are subject to Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards and are not considered as part of the total landscape area of a
property for computing percentages under the standards in this Subsection.
(III) All streetscapes intended to be turned over to the Parks Department after
development must conform to Parks Department standards. Landscaping plans
must also be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department before approval,
regardless of the water district.
[NOTE: All of this Subsection below was distributed among the other Subsections within this
Section.]
Water Conservation. Landscape plans shall be designed to incorporate water-efficient techniques.
(m) Landscape designs shall be designed according to the xeriscape landscaping principles described
as follows:
(I) Plan and design. Plan for how people will use and interact with the landscape. Group
landscape materials accordingly based upon hydrozone.
(II) Landscape arrangement. Provide a cohesive arrangement of turf, plants, mulch,
boulders and other landscape elements that support the criteria in Section 5.
10.1(H).Landscape elements shall be arranged to provide appropriate plant spacing
and grouping and to avoid a disproportionate and excessive use of mulch areas.
(III) Appropriate use of turf. Limit high water-use turf to high-traffic areas where turf is
functional and utilized.
(IV) Appropriate plant selection. Selected plants shall be well-adapted to the Fort Collins
climate and site conditions. Plants shall be grouped according to water and light
requirements.
(V) Efficient irrigation. Design, operate and maintain an efficient irrigation system. Select
equipment appropriate to the hydrozone. Water deeply and infrequently to develop
greater drought tolerance.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 36
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-87 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(VI) Soil preparation. Incorporate soil amendments appropriate to the soil and the plant
material. Soil preparation must be in accordance with City of Fort Collins Municipal
Code 3..2.1.
(VII) Mulch. Maintain a minimum depth of three inches of mulch in planting beds to
conserve soil moisture and control weeds, with careful placement and adjustment of
depth near plant stems as needed to allow unimpeded plant establishment and
vigorous growth.
(VIII) Maintenance. Provide regular maintenance including but not limited to weeding,
pruning, mowing to an appropriate height, deadheading, replacement of dead plant
material, and replenishment of mulch surfaces.
(IX) Xeriscape principles do not include or allow artificial turf or plants; paving of areas not
used for walkways, patios or parking; excessive bare ground or mulch; weed
infestations; or any landscaping that does not comply with the standards of this
section.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(3) was previously (E)(3)(b).]
(3) Water Budget and Hydrozones. Landscape plans shall include must also contain estimated water
use, including:
(a) Maximum Not to Exceed. A water budget chart that shows the total annual water use., which
shall Total annual water use once landscaping is established must not exceed an average of
fifteen (15)eleven (11) gallons/square foot/year for each water tap.
(b) Hydrozones. A hydrozone plan view diagram that identifies each hydrozone category assigned
per planted area and that sums the total area of each category per hydrozone. The hydrozone
plan view diagram shall provide an accurate and clear visual identification of all hy drozones using
easily distinguished symbols, labeling, hatch patterns, and relationships of hydrozone plan
elements.
Accurate and clear identification of all applicable hHydrozones are defined in Section 7.2.2 and according
to using the following categories:
Table 5.10.1-(5) – Hydrozones
HYDROZONE WATER CONSUMPTION PER YEAR
High Hydrozone 18 gallons/square feet/year
Moderate Hydrozone 14 gallons/square feet/year
Low Hydrozone 8 gallons/square feet/year
Very Low Hydrozone 3 gallons/square feet/year
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(4) was previously (E)(4).]
(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback
areas required by Section 5.9.1(J)(Access, Circulation and Parking) and irrigation shall meet the
following minimum standards in addition to the other requirements in this Section:
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 37
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-88 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(a) Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public
street and one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. Trees
may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger
overall planting patterns and organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in
and should be integrated with the streetscape in the street right -of-way.
(b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from abutting uses and from
the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in
combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent
(75%) of light from vehicle headlights for the entire length of the parking lot. Screening from the
street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant
material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty
(30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent (70%) of the length
of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent (70%) of the length of any
boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening
shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the
street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot
screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve
required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the
vehicular use area to be screened.
[NOTE: This Subsection (D)(5) was previously (E)(5).]
(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. Six (6) percent (6%) of the interior space of all parking lots
with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and ten (10) percent (10%) of the interior space of all
parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. (See Figure 15.10.1-
(2)). All parking lot islands, connecting walkways through parking lots and driveways through or to
parking lots shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the following standards in addition to the
other requirements in this Section:
(a) Visibility. To avoid landscape material blocking driver sight distance at driveway-street
intersections, no plant material greater than twenty-four (24) inches in height shall be located
within fifteen (15) feet of a curb cut. This requirement does not apply to trees, for which visibility
requirements are provided in Subsection (D)(2)(k)(II) of this Section.
(b) Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly distributed to the maximum
extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade
tree per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped sur face
of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantingslive plants with mulch, as
appropriate.
(c) Landscaped Islands. In addition to any pedestrian refuge areas, each landscaped island shall
include one (1) or more canopy shade trees, be of length greater than eight (8) feet in its smallest
dimension, include at least eighty (80) square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root
aeration, and have raised concrete curbs.
Figure 15.10.1-(2) – Interior Landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas:
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 38
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-89 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(d) Walkways and Driveways. Connecting wWalkways through parking lots, as required in
subsection 5.9.1(C)(5)(a) (Walkways), shall have one (1) canopy shade tree per forty (40) lineal
feet of such walkway planted in landscape areas within five (5) feet of such walkway. Driveways
through or to parking lots shall have one (1) canopy shade tree per forty (40) lineal feet of and
along each side of such driveway, in landscape areas within five (5) feet of such driveway.
(e) Parking bBays shall extend no more than fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening
tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula.
(f) Engineering. Detailed specifications concerning parking lot surfacing material and parking lot
drainage detention are available from the City Engineer.
(6) Screening. Landscape and building elements shall be used to screen areas of low visual interest or
visually intrusive site elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks
and blank walls) from off-site view. Such screening shall be established on all sides of such elements
except where an opening is required for access. If access is possible only on a side that is visible
from a public street, a removable or operable screen shall be required. The screen shall be designed
and established so that the area or element being screened is no more than twenty (20) percent
(20%) visible through the screen.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 39
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-90 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
Screening Materials. Required screening shall be provided in the form of new or existing plantings, walls,
fences, screen panels, topographic changes, buildings, horizontal separation or a combination of these
techniques.
Landscaping of Vehicle Display Lots. Vehicle display lots for vehicle sales and leasing (as those
terms are defined in Article 7) that abut an arterial or collector street shall feature landscaped islands
along the street at an interval not to exceed every fifteen (15) vehicles or one hundred thirty -five
(135) feet, whichever is less. Each landscaped island shall comply with the requirements of
5.10.1(E)(5)(c).
[NOTE: This Subsection (E) was previously Subsection (I).]
(E) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement.
(1) TopsoilSoil Preparation. To the maximum extent feasible, topsoil that is removed during
construction activity shall be conserved for later use on areas requiring revegetation and
landscaping. Organic sSoil amendments shall also be incorporated as appropriate to the existing soil
and the proposed plant material and in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.5.5Subsection
(K) of this Section.
(2) Plant Materials. Plant material shall be selected from the City of Fort Collins Plant List created and
maintained by Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections Department and adopted by the Director.
The Plant List contains plants determined by local resources to be appropriate for local conditions.
The Director may approve plants not included on the list upon a determination that such plants are
well suited for the local climate.
(a) No invasive plant species may be included in a landscape plan or installed in a development.
(b) A landscape plan proposing a plants that is not included on the Plant lList may be approved by
applicable decision-making staff if the applicant verifies on the landscape plan that the plant is
well adapted to the Fort Collins upon a determination that such plants are well suited for the
local climate and site conditions and is not a noxious weed according to Colorado Department
of Agriculture or a weed under City Code Section 20-41.
(3) Plant Quality. All plants shall be A-Grade or No. 1 Grade, free of any defects, of normal health,
height, leaf density and spread appropriate to the species as defined by the latest version of the
American Association of Nurserymen standardsStandard for Nursery Stock.
[NOTE: The previous Subsection (E)(4) that existed here was moved into its own Subsection (I).]
(4) Maintenance. Trees and vegetation, irrigation systems, fences, walls and other landscape
elements shall be considered as elements and infrastructure of the project development in the same
manner as parking, building materials and other site details. The applicant, landowner or successors
in interest shall be jointly and severally responsible for the regular maintenance of all landscaping
elements in good condition. Required maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following:
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 40
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-91 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(a) Perform regular elimination of weeds, pruning, mowing to an appropriate height, deadheading ,
replacement of dead plant material, and replenishment of mulch surfaces.
(b) Maintain Aall landscaping shall be maintained free from disease, pests, weeds, and litter, and all
landscape structures such as fences and walls shall be repaired and replaced periodically to
maintain a structurally sound condition.
(c) Use best practices for integrated pest management to protect pollinators and other living
organisms, as well as best practices for prioritizing water quality, that improve the health of
landscapes and soils.
(d) Preserve and protect trees and the critical root zone (CRZ) designated for preservation. Preserving
and protection includes but is not limited to avoiding damage to the tree and CRZ. Damaging
actions include but are not limited to backing into a tree, excavating or trenching in the CRZ,
storing heavy equipment on the CRZ, and overpruning.
(I) Damage to a tree or CRZ that interferes with the long-term health of the tree
requires mitigation according to the Tree Mitigation Requirements under
Subsection (G) of this Section.
(II) Naturally fallen trees or trees found to be a threat to public health, safety or
welfare are exempt.
(5) Replacement. Any landscape element that dies, or is otherwise removed, shall be promptly
replaced based on the requirements of this Section.
(6) Mitigation. Healthy, mature trees that are removed by the applicant or by anyone acting on behalf
of or with the approval of the applicant shall be replaced per Subsection (F) with not less than one
(1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of value of the removed
treeexisting canopy. The applicant shall select either the City Forester or a qualified landscape
appraiser to determine such loss based upon ana fair market value appraisal of the removed tree,
using the most recent published methods established by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers. Larger than minimum sizes (as set forth in subsection (D)(4) above) shall be required for
such replacement treesresources listed in Subsection (F) of this Section.
[NOTE: This Subsection (E)(7) was previously Subsection (M).]
(7) Revegetation. When the development causes any disturbance within any natural area buffer zone,
revegetation shall occur as required in paragraphSubsection 5.6.1(E)(2) (Development Activities
Within the Buffer Zone) and subsection 5.10.1(F) (Tree Preservation and Mitigation).
(8) Restricted Tree Species. City Forestry Division shall provide a list of specified tree species that
shall not neither be planted within the limits of development and LOD, nor in the adjoining street
right-of-way. For example, no ash trees (Fraxinus species) shall be planted due to the anticipated
impacts of the emerald ash borer.
(9) Prohibited Tree sSpecies. For prohibited species reference to Chapter 27, Article II, Division 1,
Sec. 27-18 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 41
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-92 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(10) Mulch. In addition to the requirements under Subsection (D)(2)(f) of this Section, the
following standards apply:
(a) Mulch for Trees. All trees must have organic mulch placed and replenished as needed at a
depth of two (2) to four (4) inches for a minimum of a three (3) foot radius mulch ring or
under a tree grate. This includes trees planted in rock cobble planting beds.
(b) Mulch for Other Landscaping. Mulch must be placed and replenished as needed to Mmaintain
complete coverage of the soil surface with a minimum depth of three two (2) to four (4)
inches of mulch. Mulch shall be maintained at these minimum depths in planting beds to
conserve soil moisture and control weeds, with careful placement and adjustment of depth
near plant stems as needed to allow unimpeded plant establishment and vigorous growth.
[NOTE: This Subsection (F) has remained Subsection (F).]
(F) Tree Preservation and Mitigation. Existing significant trees (six (6) inches and greater in diameter)
within the LOD and within natural habitat buffer zonesNHBZs shall must be recorded in a tree inventory
and preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of
this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of
this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in sSubsection (F)(2) below. Streets, buildings and lot
layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. All required landscape
plans, demolition plans, grading plans, building plans, engineering plans, and utility plans shall
accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing
the applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Where the City determines it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to
transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to the
following requirements and shall satisfy the tree planting standards of this SectionSubsection.
To the extent reasonably feasible, replacement mitigation trees shall be planted on the development site
or, if not reasonably feasible, in the closest available and suitable planting site on public or private
property. The closest available and suitable planting site shall be selected within one -half (½) mile (2,640
feet) of the development site, subject to the following exceptions. If suitable planting sites for all of the
replacement trees are not available within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development, then the
City Forester shall determine the most suitable planting location within the City's boundaries as close to
the development site as feasible. If locations for planting replacement trees cannot be located within one -
half (½) mile of the development site, the applicant may, instead of planting such replacement trees,
submit a payment in lieu to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division to be used to plant replacement trees
to plant replacement trees as close to the development site as possible. The fair market value payment in
lieu mitigation fee per tree is determined by the City Forester using the current editions of the Council of
Tree and Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal, the industry’s international standard and best
practice and may be adjusted annually based on market rates. Payment must be submitted prior to
thebefore a Development Construction Permit issuance or other required permits or pre-construction
approval is issued, as applicable.
(1) Mitigation Trees. A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1)
ornor more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of contribution and value of
the removed significant tree(s). The applicant shall coordinate with the City Forester to determine
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 42
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-93 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
such loss based upon an onsite tree assessment, including, but not limited to, shade, canopy,
condition, size, aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the tree(s) to be removed.
Replacement Mitigation trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements unless otherwise
determined by the City Forester:
(a) Canopy Shade Trees: 2.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(b) Ornamental Trees: 2.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
(2) Exemptions. Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be exempt
from the requirements of this subsection unless they meet mitigation requirements in Section
5.6.1(E)(1) of this Code:
(a) dDead, dying or naturally fallen trees, or trees found to be a threat to public health, safety or
welfare;
(b) tTrees that are determined by the City to substantially obstruct clear visibility at driveways and
intersections;
(c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) and Russian-olive
or ash (Fraxinus species) less than eight (8) inches DBH;.
(d) Russian-olive, Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) of wild or volunteer origin, such as
those that have sprouted from seed along fence lines, near structures or in other unsuitable
locations.
(3) Depiction of Street Trees. All existing street trees that are located on City rights-of-way abutting
the development shall be accurately identified by species, size, location, and condition on required
landscape plans, and shall be preserved and protected in accordance with the standards of
subsection (G).
[NOTE: This Subsection (G) has remained Subsection (G).]
(G) Tree Protection Specifications. The following tree protection specifications shall be followed for all
projects with protected existing trees. Tree protection methods shall be delineated on the demolition
plans and development plans.
(1) No Disturbance. Within the drip line of any protected existing tree, there shall be no cut or fill over
a four-inch depth unless a qualified arborist or forester has evaluated and approved the
disturbance.
(2) Pruning. All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division
standards.
(3) Protective Barriers. Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected
existing trees with such barriers to be of orange construction or chain link fencing a minimum of
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 43
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-94 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
four (4) feet in height, secured with metal T-posts, no closer than six (6) feet from the trunk or one-
half (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater. Concrete blankets, or equivalent padding material,
wrapped around the tree trunk(s) is recommended and adequate for added protection during
construction. There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the
fenced tree protection zone. A tree protection plan must be submitted to and approved by the City
Forester prior to any development occurring on the development site.
(4) Chemicals and Harmful Materials. During the construction stage of development, the applicant
shall prevent the cleaning of equipment or material or the storage and disposal of waste material
such as paints, oils, solvents, asphalt, concrete, motor oil or any other material harmful to the life of
a tree within the drip line of any protected tree or group of trees.
(5) No Attachments. No damaging attachment, wires, signs, or permits may be fastened to any
protected tree.
(6) Ribboning Off. Large property areas containing protected trees and separated from construction or
land clearing areas, road rights-of-way and utility easements may be "ribboned off," rather than
erecting protective fencing around each tree as required in sSubsection (G)(3) above. This may be
accomplished by placing metal t-post stakes a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart and tying ribbon or
rope from stake-to-stake along the outside perimeters of such areas being cleared.
(7) Soil Disturbances. Soil disturbances in proximity to trees must comply with the distances in Table
5.10.1-(6) below, Tree Diameter to Soil Disturbance Distance. Soil disturbances include, but are not
limited to, soil loosening or amending, augering or boring, tunnelling, irrigation installation, or
excavation within the critical root zone (CRZ). Soil loosening and amending shall be pursuant to City
Code Section 12-132.
(8) Underground Facilities Installations. The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any
underground fixture requiring excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be accomplished by boring
under the root system of protected existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty -four (24) inches
and not directly under the trunks of trees. The auger distance is established from the face of the
tree (outer bark) and is scaled from tree diameter at breast heightDBH as described in the chart
below. Low pressure hydro excavation, air spading or hand digging are additional tools/practices
that will help reduce impact to the tree(s) root system when excavating at depths of twenty -four
(24) inches or less. Refer to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) diagram, Figure 25.10.1-(3), for root
protection guidelines. The CRZ shall be incorporated into and shown on development plans for all
existing trees to be preserved.
Table 5.10.1-(6) – Tree Diameter to Soil Disturbance DistanceAuger Distance Table:
Tree Diameter at Breast Height
(inches)
Auger Distance From Face of Tree
(feet)
0-2 1
3-4 2
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 44
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-95 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
Over 19 15
Figure 25.10.1-(3) - Critical Root Zone Diagram.
(9) Watering During Development. All existing trees within the plan must be watered using
irrigation or hauled water sources throughout the duration of the development process and all
development activities to sustain and improve tree health and survivability, under the following
schedule: watered weekly at a minimum of forty (40) gallons per week March through October, and
monthly at a minimum of forty (40) gallons per month November through April when temperatures
are above forty degrees (40°).
(7) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements . In approving the
required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to determine the optimum
placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees, vegetation, turf,
irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following criteria:
a. protecting existing trees, natural areas and features;
b. enhancing visual continuity within and between neighborhoods;
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 45
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-88 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
c. providing tree canopy cover;
d. creating visual interest year-round;
e. complementing the architecture of a development;
f. providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually
intrusive site elements;
g. establishing an urban context within mixed-use developments;
h. providing privacy to residents and users;
i. conserving water;
j. avoiding reliance on excessive maintenance;
k. promoting compatibility and buffering between and among dissimilar land uses; and
l. establishing spatial definition.
[NOTE: This Subsection (H) was previously Subsection (J).]
(H) Irrigation. Irrigation systems must be designed, operated, and maintained to prioritize water
conservation and water efficiency. Systems should be designed to water deeply and infrequently to
develop greater drought tolerance.
(1) Automatic Irrigation. Provision shall be made for permanent, automatic irrigation of all plant
material, with the following exceptions:
(a) Plantings that do not require any irrigation beyond establishment. For such plantings, any new
or existing automatic irrigation should not be routed to these plantings and should be
established by tank watering or otherwise as noted on the landscape plan. Trees are not
considered "plantings that do not require any irrigation beyond establishment."
(b) Natural areas or other areas within a development where natural features onsite obviate the
need for irrigation.
(c) Trees and other plants used to landscape a residential local street parkway abutting lots for
detached single-unit dwellings, where manual watering is intended.
(d) Mitigation trees planted off-site where it may not be feasible to install dedicated irrigation for
that singular purpose.
(e) Landscaping adjacent to certain street frontage types , such as Storefront and Mixed Use, or
within special taxing districts such that landscaping and irrigation may be the responsibility of
an entity other than the individual property owner.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 46
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-89 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(2) Irrigation Plan Specifications. For any development provided water within the City, a finalan
irrigation plan as part of the landscape plan shall must be submitted to and approved by the
Director, and by the Parks Department if a streetscape to be turned over to the City is involved,
prior to the issuance of thebefore a building permit is issued, or if no building permit is required,
then prior tobefore commencement of construction. Any major deviation from an approved irrigation
plan, resulting from construction, requires an as-built amendment to the irrigation plan. As
determined by the Director, minor redevelopment or change of use projects may not be required to
submit an irrigation plan as part of the landscape plan.; iIn such cases, a written statement shall be
submitted describing the type of irrigation system proposed. The irrigation plan shall incorporate the
City of Fort Collins Irrigation System Standards for Water Conservation set forth belowin this
Subsection. The irrigation plan must include a water use table organized by irrigation zone for each
irrigation tap, corresponding to the hydrozone plan view diagram and aligning with the water budget
chart in the landscape plan (Subsection(D)(3) of this Section), and showing the total annual water
use. The irrigation plan must also depict on the hydrozone plan view diagram in each watering area
by hydrozone, the location/point of irrigation tap connections with the water system, the proposed
peak gallons per minute and tap size for each tap, and the layout of irrigation main lines proposed.
In addition, as provided below in Subsection (I) of this Section, the irrigation system must be
inspected for compliance with the approved irrigation plan before the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
(3) Irrigation System Standards for Water Conservation. The City of Fort Collins Irrigation
System Standards for Water Conservation are as follows:
(a) Irrigation Methods and Layout.
(I) The irrigation system shall be designed according to the hydrozones shown on the
landscape plan and shall perform as provided in the water budget chart.
(II) Each zone shall irrigate a landscape with similar site, soil conditions and plant
material having similar water needs. To the extent reasonably feasible, areas with
significantly different solar exposures shall be zoned separately.
(III) Trees, including street trees, Tturf and non-turf areas shall be irrigated on separate
zones. Dedicated non-overhead, surface or subsurface irrigation must be installed
for all new trees and existing trees within the plan, except as provided in Subsection
(H)(1) above.
(IV) On steep grades, an irrigation method with a lower precipitation rate shall be used
in order to minimize runoff, and, to the extent reasonably feasible, these areas shall
be zoned separately.
(V) No combination of Ddrip, micro-sprays, sprayheads and or rotors shall not be used
together or combined on the same zone.
(VI) The irrigation method shall be selected to correlate with the plant density. Drip
irrigation or bubblers shall be used for sparsely planted trees and shrubs, and
rotors, sprayheads and multi-jet rotary nozzles shall be used for turfgrass.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 47
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-90 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(b) Equipment Selection.
(I) To reduce leakage of water from the irrigation system, a master shut-off valve shall
be installed downstream of the backflow device to shut off water to the system
when not operating.
(II) For irrigation systems that are on a combined-use tap, with a water meter installed
upstream to measure total water use, the installation of an irrigation-only submeter
should be considered must be installed. The purpose of the submeter would beis to
enable the owner and landscape maintenance contractor to monitor water use for
irrigation. The submeter would is not be used for billing purposes. The cost of
installation and maintenance of a submeter, if used, would be borne by the owner
of the property and not by the City. All such submeters would have to be installed in
accordance with the specifications established by the City.
(III) Irrigation controllers shall be "smart" controllers, using climate-based or soil
moisture-based technology, selected from the WaterSense labeled irrigation
controllers list issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency from
time-to-time and available at the City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation
Department. Controllers shall be installed and programmed according to
manufacturer's specifications.
a. A data input chart for the Smart Controller, including the precipitation rate from
the audit, shall be posted at each irrigation controller.
b. Within six (6) weeks of the installation of new landscapingirrigated turf grass
sod or seed, the irrigation system Smart Controllersschedule shall be reduced
and set reset to the a normal seasonal watering schedule.
(IV) An evapotranspiration (ET) sensor or weather monitor shall be installed on each
irrigation controller and installed according to manufacturer's specifications in a
location to receive accurate weather conditions.
(V) Sprinklers and nozzles shall meet the following requirements:
a. The type of sprinkler and associated nozzles shall be selected to correlate with
the size and geometry of the zone being irrigated.
b. Sprinklers shall be spaced no closer than seventy-five (75) percent (75%) of the
maximum radius of throw for the given sprinkler and nozzle. Maximum spacing
shall be head-to-head coverage.
c. Coverage arcs and radius of throw for turf areas shall be selected and adjusted
to water only turf areas and minimize overspray onto vegetated areas, hard
surfaces, buildings, fences or other non-landscaped surfaces.
d. Sprinklers, bubblers or emitters on a zone shall be of the same manufacturer.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 48
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-91 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
e. Sprayheads in turf areas shall have a minimum three-and-one-half-inch pop-up
riser height.
f. Sprayheads on a zone shall have matched precipitation nozzles. Variable Arc
Nozzles (VAN) are not acceptable for ninety degree (90°), one hundred eighty
degree (180°) and three hundred sixty degree (360°) degree applications. High-
Efficiency Variable Arc Nozzles (HE-VAN) are acceptable only in odd- shaped
areas where ninety degree (90°), one hundred eighty degree (180°) and three
hundred sixty degree (360°) are not applicable.
g. Nozzles for rotors shall be selected to achieve an approximate uniform
precipitation rate throughout the zone.
h. All sprayheads and rotors shall be equipped with check valves. Sprayheads shall
also have pressure-regulating stems.
(VI) Pressure-compensating emitters shall be used for drip irrigation. For sloped areas, a
check valve shall be installed, and the drip line shall be parallel to the slope.
(VII) Remote control valves shall have flow control.
(VIII) A backflow prevention assembly shall be installed in accordance with local codes. All
backflow assemblies shall be equipped with adequately sized winterization ports
downstream of the backflow assembly.
(IX) Properties with single or combined point of connection flows of two hundred (200)
gpm or greater shall have a control system capable of providing real-time flow
monitoring and the ability to shut down the system in the event of a high-flow
condition.
(c) Sleeving.
(I) Separate sleeves shall be installed beneath paved areas to route each run of
irrigation pipe or wiring bundle. The diameter of sleeving shall be twice that of the
pipe or wiring bundle.
(II) The sleeving material beneath sidewalks, drives and streets shall be PVC Class 200
pipe with solvent welded joints.
(d) Water Pressure.
(I) The irrigation system designer shall verify the existing available water pressure.
(II) The irrigation system shall be designed such that the point-of-connection design
pressure, minus the possible system pressure losses, is greater than or equal to the
design sprinkler operating pressure.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 49
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-92 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
(III) All pop-up spray sprinkler bodies equipped with spray nozzles shall operate at no
less than twenty (20) psi and no more than thirty (30) psi.
(IV) All rotary sprinklers and multi-stream rotary nozzles on pop-up spray bodies shall
operate at the manufacturer's specified optimum performance pressure.
(V) If the operating pressure exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating
pressure for any sprinkler body, pressure shall be regulated at the zone valve or
sprinkler heads.
(VI) Booster pumps shall be installed on systems where supply pressure does not meet
the manufacturer's minimum recommended operating pressure for efficient water
distribution.
(e) Sprinkler Performance Audit.
(I) A sprinkler performance audit shall be performed by a landscape irrigation auditor
who is independent of the installation contractor, and who is certified by the
Irrigation Association (a nonprofit industry organization dedicated to promoting
efficient irrigation). Sprinkler systems that are designed and installed without
irrigated turf grass areas are exempt from this requirement.
(II) The audit shall include measurement of distribution uniformity. Minimum acceptable
distribution uniformities shall be sixty (60) percent (60%) for spray head zones and
seventy (70) percent (70%) for rotor zones. Sprinkler heads equipped with multi-
stream rotary nozzles are considered rotors.
(III) Audit results below the minimum acceptable distribution uniformity as set for the
sSubsection (H)(3)(e)(II) above require adjustments and/or repairs to the irrigation
system. These corrections will be noted on the irrigation as-builts and the test area
re-audited until acceptable efficiency/results.
(IV) The audit shall measure the operating pressure for one (1) sprinkler on each zone
to determine whether the zone meets the above pressure requirements.
(V) A copy of the sprinkler performance audit shall be submitted to and approved by
the City before issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
[NOTE: This Subsection (I) was previously Paragraph (I)(4).]
(I) Landscape and Irrigation Installation and Escrow. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed
according to sound horticultural practices in a manner designed to encourage quick establishment and
healthy growth. All landscaping in each phase shall either be installed or the installation shall be secured
with a letter of credit, escrow or performance bond for one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the
value of the landscaping prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in such
phase. Except as provided herein, no certificate of occupancy is authorized to be issued for any building
on any portion of a property required by this Section to have a landscape plan, unless all landscaping
has been installed according to an approved landscape plan for the property, all irrigation has been
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 50
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-93 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
installed according to an approved irrigation plan for the property, and both have been maintained as
required under this Section for a period of two (2) years (Except a non-potable system intended to be
turned over to the Parks Department shall be warrantied and maintained for five (5) years, and if the
non-potable system fails, a potable tap shall be supplied at no cost to the City.). If such landscaping and
irrigation installations have not been completed, a certificate of occupancy may be issued upon the
receipt by the City of surety in the form of an acceptable bond, cash deposit, or equivalent conditioned
on and guaranteeing the installation of the entire landscaping shown on the approved landscaping plan
and the irrigation system shown on the approved irrigation plan or the installation pursuant to an
approved phasing plan. Such surety must be in the amount of one hundred twenty-five percent (125%)
of the estimated cost of the landscaping installation, irrigation installation, or both as applicable,
determined by an executed contract to install the landscaping, irrigation, or both, or by adequate
appraisals of the cost. Such surety must further guarantee the continued maintenance and replacement
of the landscaping and irrigation for a period of two (2) years after installation (or five (5) years for a
non-potable irrigation system intended to be turned over to the Parks Department as provided above),
but the amount of the same may be reduced after installation is completed, to twenty -five percent
(25%) of the actual cost of such landscaping. Any surety provided pursuant to this requirement shall be
released upon certification by the Construction Inspect Manager that the required landscaping program
and irrigation system have been completed and maintained in accordance with the landscape plan.
[NOTE: This Subsection (J) was previously Subsection (O).]
(J) Soil Loosening and Amendments. For any development project, prior tobefore installation of any
plant materials, including but not limited to grass, seed, flowers, shrubs, or trees, the soil in the area to
be planted shall be loosened and amended in a manner consistent with the requirements of City Code
Section 12-132(a), regardless of whether a building permit is required for the specific lot, tract or parcel
in which the area is located. A certification consistent with the requirements of City Code Section 12-
132(b)12-133 shall be required for the area to be planted. A variance to modify the soil loosening
standards of Section 12-132(b); the soil amendment standards of Section 12-132(c); or the compliance
deadline of Section 12-133(a) may be applied for as This requirement may be temporarily suspended or
waived for the reasons and in the manner set forth in City Code Sections 12-132(c) and (d)12-134.
[NOTE: This Subsection (K) was previously Subsection (N).]
(K) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an
alternative landscape and tree protection plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a
landscape plan meeting the standards of this Section.
(1) Procedure. Alternative landscape plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with
submittal requirements for landscape plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the
modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the pl an will better accomplish the
purposes of this Section than would a plan which that complies with the standards of this
Section.
(2) Review Criteria. Staff focused in the applicable area of forestry, landscape, or irrigation must
provide a recommendation as to whether to approve an alternate plan. To approve an alternative
plan with a staff recommendation, the decision maker must find determine that the proposed
alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan
which that complies with the standards of this Section.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 51
ARTICLE 5 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE
DESIGN
5-94 | ARTICLE 5 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the
purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall take into account whether the
alternative accomplishes the functions listed in Subsection (C)(1) through (7) and Subsection (H) of
this Section and demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape
elements.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 52
CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 7
RULES OF
MEASUREMENT and
DEFINITIONS
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Discussion
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
DO
N
O
T
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
E
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DIVISION 7.1 MEASUREMENT
7.1.1 General.
7.1.2 Rules of measurement.
DIVISION 7.2 DEFINITION
7.2.1 General.
7.2.2 Definitions.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
DO
N
O
T
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
E
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 54
ARTICLE 7 – RULES OF MEASUREMENT AND DEFINTIONS
7-2 | ARTICLE 7 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 7
RULES OF MEASUREMENT and
DEFINITIONS
DIVISION 7 .2 DEFINITION
7.2.1 GENERAL.
For words, terms and phrases used in this Land Use Code that are not defined in Section 7.2.2 or
elsewhere in this Land Use Code, the Director shall have the authority and power to interpret or define
such words, terms and phrases. In making such interpretations or definitions, the Director may consult
appropriate secondary sources.
7.2.2 DEFINITIONS.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section:
Hydrozone shall mean an area within thea landscape defined by a groupingwhere a group of plants
requiring a with similar amount of water to sustain health water needs is located. For details on how this is
measured, refer to Subsection 5.10.1(D)(3). For the purposes of this Code, hydrozones are divided into the
following four (4) categories:
(A) Very low hydrozones include plantings that need supplemental water when first planted, but little or
none once established.
(B) Low hydrozones include plantings that generally do not require more than three (3) gallons per
square foot of supplemental water per year. These plantings require additional water during plant
establishment or drought.
(C) Moderate hydrozones include plantings that generally require ten (10) gallons per square foot of
supplemental water per year.
(D) High hydrozones include plantings that generally require eighteen (18) gallons per square foot of
supplemental water per year.
Mulch, inorganic shall mean loose material not derived from living matter placed on the soil surface for the
purposes of retaining soil moisture and controlling weeds, including gravel, crushed rock and river rock.
Mulch, organic shall mean loose material derived from formerly living sources placed on the soil surface for
the purposes of retaining soil moisture and controlling weeds, including shredded bark and wood chips.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
DO
N
O
T
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
E
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 55
ARTICLE # – ARTICLE TITLE
3 | ARTICLE 7 | CITY OF FORT COLLINS – LAND USE CODE
Invasive plant species shall mean a plant that is a noxious weed or listed as a watch list species according
to Colorado Department of Agriculture or is a plant that is not native to the state and that:
(A) Is introduced into the state accidentally or intentionally;
(B) Has no natural competitors or predators in the state because the state is outside of their
competitors' or predators' range; and
(C) Has harmful effects on the state's environment or economy or both.
Native in context with vegetation, grass, or plant shall mean any plant identified in Fort Collins Native
Plants: Plant Characteristics and Wildlife Value of Commercial Species , prepared by the City's Natural
Resources Department, updated February 2003.a plant species that occurs or could occur naturally in Fort
Collins or in Colorado without the direct or indirect influence of human actions.
Urban tree canopy shall mean the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground
when viewed from above.
DR
A
F
T
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
4
Dis
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
O
n
l
y
DO
N
O
T
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
E
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 56
Utilities
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522
970-212-2900
utilities@fcgov.com
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Date: July 30, 2024
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Through: Jill Oropeza, Utilities Interim One Water Director
From: Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Subject: Water Supply Requirements, Excess Water Use Surcharges, and Pre-1984 Non-
Residential Water Allotments.
BOTTOM LINE
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with information on
proposed changes to the following three related items for Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) water
customers:
• Revisions to the Water Supply Requirement (WSR) fee methodology
• Revisions to the excess water use surcharge (surcharge)
• Assignment of annual water allotments (allotments) for non-residential customers, specifically,
pre-1984 non-residential accounts that currently do not have allotments
Questions for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider are:
1. What general questions do you have about the proposed methodologies?
2. How might you or the community you represent be impacted by these changes?
3. What other input do you have?
RECOMMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION
A letter of support for the recommended methodologies for the WSR fee and assigning of
allotment to provide to Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Utilities has been proactive in securing and developing a high-quality, reliable water supply
system since the late 1800s and has implemented policies to ensure the water supply system will
support existing and future water customers through the 2065 planning horizon. These efforts
continue in support of City Council’s priority to Protect Community Water Systems in an Integrated
Way to Ensure Resilient Water Resources and Healthy Watersheds. Financial mechanisms to
help achieve this priority include:
• A WSR fee: A one-time development fee required for each new water service
• Allotments: Assigned to non-residential, including irrigation-only, accounts based on their
WSR
Packet Pg. 57
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 2 of 8
• Surcharges: Monthly charges for non-residential customers who exceed their allotment during
a 12-month period
Over the past several years, the cost to develop Utilities’ water supply has increased due to water
scarcity, driven by climate change impacts such as drought and higher regional water demands
and competition. Infrastructure costs have increased as well due primarily to inflation which
contributes to the overall WSR development costs. This prompted staff to reevaluate the WSR
fee and methodology, which was last evaluated in 2022 and set at $68,200 per acre-foot (AF). In
August 2023, staff presented a revised WSR fee methodology to City Council and a proposed fee
and surcharge increase. Following that work session, Council feedback included a desire to see
additional WSR options. Staff evaluated additional methodologies and presented these to Council
on April 9 and July 9, 2024 with the recommendation for a hybrid, cost-based approach (discussed
further below). Council generally supported this approach.
The surcharge amount is determined by the WSR fee and non-residential customers with
allotments are affected by higher surcharges if the fee increases. Of the approximately 3,000 non-
residential water taps, about 1,000 of those water taps were purchased before 1984, when
allotments were established, and therefore do not have an allotment. These accounts are subject
to the regular water rate structure; however, the surcharge does not apply to them. At the April 9
work session, staff recommended assigning allotments to the 1,000 non-residential accounts.
Staff presented several methodologies with the recommendation for a hybrid approach.
WSR: Methodologies, Impacts, Communication and Engagement
Methodologies
According to the American Water Works Association’s ‘Seventh Edition of Water Rates, Fees,
and Charges’, there are three basic methodologies for calculating a WSR fee. They are based on
a water provider’s water rights portfolio, infrastructure, and the ability of the current water supply
system to serve existing versus future customers. These methods include:
• Full Buy-In Method: Values the entire existing water supply system, which is expected to
service all current and future customers’ water value. Future customers would then buy into
the entire current system (total value of system/total yield).
• Incremental Method: Based on the cost to expand the water supply system to serve future
customers. This fee only reflects the cost of buying water rights and paying for infrastructure
needed to support future customers.
• Hybrid Method: Includes a buy-in component that is the portion of the current water supply
system, and an incremental portion that is the portion of the system that has not been
purchased or built yet. It acknowledges that future customers will use both current and future
water supply systems and thus reflects the percentage of the total cost of the current and
future system that will serve those customers.
Utilities has been using a hybrid approach since 2018 and recommends continuing with this
approach. Utilities owns water rights that new customers will rely on, reflecting a “buy-in” portion
of costs. Utilities also needs to build new infrastructure (primarily storage in Halligan Reservoir)
and purchase additional water rights, reflecting an “incremental” portion of costs that will provide
the water supply needed to meet demands through build out in 2065.
The buy-in portion of the WSR fee can be valued with a market-based approach or a cost-based
approach. The current methodology uses a market-based approach. The market-based approach
Packet Pg. 58
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 3 of 8
uses the current market value for the existing water rights portfolio based on recent transactions
of water rights. The cost-based approach uses the original purchase price of the water rights
escalated by the Consumer Price Index to reflect their value in today’s dollars.
The cost-based approach results in a lower WSR fee than the market-based approach because
Utilities’ water supplies were generally acquired long ago before recent and significant water rights
cost increases. The incremental portion of the fee uses the market-based approach to value the
water rights that need to be purchased and the future infrastructure that needs to be constructed.
Other factors that can be reflected in the WSR fee include a 30% contingency factor and a 20%
safety factor which are both included in the current methodology. The contingency factor
represents uncertainties in the cost of future water rights and infrastructure. It is not applied to the
buy-in portion of the WSR fee. The safety factor represents uncertainties in future water supply
and demand needs such as potential impacts of climate change and type or rate of development
and redevelopment. It is applied to the entire WSR fee.
Staff evaluated WSR fees using the current hybrid methodology with different approaches of
valuing the “buy-in” component using market values or cost-based values and the inclusion and
omission of a safety factor. Staff deemed the safety factor necessary. At the July 9 work session
staff presented the following options:
Staff recommended the cost-based, 30% contingency, 20% safety factor method, which results
in a fee of $63,800 per AF. That amount is $4,400 per AF less than the current fee of $68,200 per
AF. Council was generally supportive of this methodology moving forward.
Impacts
Future Development/Redevelopment
All water service providers in the region require some form of WSR for development or
redevelopment. The methodologies used and the required water dedications differ making
comparisons challenging.
For most water providers, the cost required from developers depends on:
1. The fee per AF of water ($/AF)
2. The amount of water required (AF)
Where, Total cost = $ per AF of water x the amount of water required (AF)
Utilities currently has a higher fee per AF compared to other water providers in the region.
However, the amount of water required for dedication for different developments is sometimes
less.
Packet Pg. 59
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 4 of 8
For example, applying the proposed WSR fee to the amount of water required for a multi-family
development would cost $272,400 in Utilities’ service area compared to East Larimer County
Water District at $670,900 and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District at $1,228,200 (see table
below):
On the other hand, Utilities would require a median cost for an office building and higher costs for
a typical restaurant compared to other water providers. Utilities bases its requirements on
analyses of actual use whereas other providers use different methodologies (like a tap credit,
peak water use, differing time range of historical use, etc.).
Existing Customers: Rates vs. Fees
Monthly water rates and development fees are the two main sources of water fund revenue. Water
development fees can be further broken down into:
1) WSR fee: One-time fee geared toward acquisition of future water rights and construction of
storage and water supply infrastructure projects.
2) Plant investment fee: One-time fee geared toward recovery of the water treatment plant and
distribution system.
A significant portion of water fund revenue is collected from monthly utility rates, equating to
roughly 95% of total revenue each year on average. The remaining 5% comes from development
fees and surcharges, although there are variations in this ratio, and fluctuations are tied to
development (or redevelopment) projects that occur in Utilities’ service area.
Routine updates to the WSR fee, as well as the excess water use surcharge, will help Utilities
keep up with increasing costs and provide a recovery mechanism for both current and future
source of supply and water storage projects. The methodology being considered to calculate the
WSR fee will have an impact to existing customers, both now and into the future, as revenue from
these fees are dependent on rate and type of development year to year.
Packet Pg. 60
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 5 of 8
Because Utilities is a municipal-owned, cost-of-service utility provider, there is an inverse
relationship between rates and fees. In general, the lower the WSR fee, the more it will impact
customer rates. The higher the fee, the less it will impact rates. The WSR fee also impacts the
source of funding for projects like the Halligan Water Supply Project (Halligan). The impact to
customer rates strongly correlates to the amount of development that occurs. The City’s Planning
Department has two projections for the type of development and associated growth we can
expect, which results in an additional water dedication of either 1,024 or 2,000 AF over the next
40 years. If the recommended WSR fee of $63,800 is implemented, it is projected that Utilities will
collect roughly $4.5 million less in development fee revenue by 2065 compared to requiring the
current fee of $68,200 per AF. This is a decrease of 6.5% in development fees, which would
require roughly a half-percent increase in customer rates to recoup the difference. On average,
staff expect development to pay Utilities for roughly 25 acre-feet of water in cash for development
each year over the long term. In recent years, though, this amount has been much less, which
also drives higher short-term needs to increase rates to stabilize revenue and increase debt
capacity for projects such as Halligan. Currently, Utilities estimates a 7-10% increase in water
rates each year over the next 10 years based on the current fee and average revenue from WSR
and surcharges over the past five years.
Assigning New Allotments to Pre-1984 Non-residential Customers
As noted above, staff recommends assigning allotments to pre-1984 non-residential customers
that do not have one. This will:
• Provide consistency across non-residential customers.
• Increase fairness by requiring all customers to manage water efficiently and be subject to a
surcharge.
• Address these assignments now rather than in the future when WSR and surcharges could
be greater and more challenging for customers to manage. If Utilities does not assign
allotments to those customers, and surcharges increase, the gap between those with
allotments and those without will grow.
• Promote water conservation by assigning appropriate allotments and tailoring water efficiency
programs to customers who exceed.
Important considerations:
• Staff recommends that when customers receive a new allotment, they would not owe a WSR
fee.
• Customers will need time to understand their allotment, how they use water, and how to
budget water use within their allotment.
• This does not re-evaluate existing allotments.
Methodologies and Impacts
After evaluating a variety of methods for assigning allotments (summarized below), staff
recommended the hybrid approach. Pros and cons from the evaluation are listed below.
Packet Pg. 61
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 6 of 8
1) Hybrid
a. Assigns an allotment based either the tap size or average annual consumption,
whichever is greater.
b. Could assign a higher allotment than needed making it difficult to address or identify
inefficiencies in water use.
c. Lowest impact to pre-1984 customers.
d. 50-75 accounts would have exceeded their allotment in each of the last five years
e. Inconsistent with historic and current code.
2) Tap Size
a. Assigns allotment based on meter size (method used to assign allotments from 1984-
2022).
b. Some customers would receive a disproportionate allotment subjecting them to
surcharges.
c. 80-100 accounts would have exceeded their allotment in each of the last five years
d. Consistent with previous code.
3) Average Annual Consumption
a. Assigns an allotment based on average historical water use per tap (five, seven, or 10
years).
b. Reflects actual water use but doesn’t always reflect or identify inefficiencies in use.
c. Lower impact from surcharges. Unless there’s significant growth or changes in
business use and function, annual consumption is expected to be around the
allotment.
d. 400-560 accounts would have exceeded at least once in the last five years”
e. Inconsistent with current and historical codes.
4) Business Type
a. Allotments are assigned based on the specific use (e.g., number of rooms in a hotel,
square footage of a restaurant, outdoor water demands based on landscape details).
b. More accurate but cannot evaluate the potential impacts to customers without
collecting the data necessary to assign the allotment.
c. Consistent with current code, but inconsistent with majority of existing allotments (only
approximately 44 accounts have been assigned this way since 2022).
The table below illustrates the impacts to customers had the account had the allotment volume
proposed by the hybrid method.
Packet Pg. 62
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 7 of 8
The accounts most likely to be impacted are those with variable use due to factors such as
weather, patronage and unique use. Irrigation-only, including City Parks, taps serving multiple
tenants (e.g. strip malls), and restaurants are uses that may experience greater impacts.
Additionally, there are some unique account types including City Parks, large water use accounts,
and some HOAs that may experience greater impacts and require more in-depth analysis and
customer outreach.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Annual revenue from development fees is directly tied to development and redevelopment within
Utilities’ water service area, which can vary greatly from year to year. Any changes to the WSR
fee will impact the amount recovered for source of supply and storage projects in both the near
term and long term. A change in the WSR is also directly tied to the amount collected in
surcharges, and as customers exceed their annual allotment, helps ensure recovery for
undersized WSR amounts received at time of development.
For those pre-1984 accounts, roughly 5-7% of those accounts may exceed their allotments in any
given year. Using current EWU rates, this could result in additional surcharge collection up to
$250,000 annually.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Utilities reached out to customers and community members who could potentially be impacted
by these decisions, including developers, community groups, Boards and Commissions, existing
customers, and non-residential customers who would be assigned an allotment. In general, the
feedback received has been positive or neutral, with most groups interested in better
understanding their specific situation. Tactics for outreach included:
• Our City engagement website
• Direct email and mail
• Webinar for potential new allotment customers
• Internal staff lunch and learn
• Dedicated office hours appointments by request
NEXT STEPS
Packet Pg. 63
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aug. 9, 2024
Page 8 of 8
Staff will bring an ordinance for City Council first reading for the implementation of a hybrid,
cost-based method for calculating the WSR fee and assigning allotments using the hybrid
method in October.
Packet Pg. 64
Headline Copy Goes Here
Water Resources Manager
Jen Dial
Water Supply
Requirements and
Pre-1984
Non-Residential
Water Allotments
Aug. 9, 2024
Headline Copy Goes HerePurpose
1. Build shared understanding of the history and
purpose of Water Supply Requirement (WSR)
fees and pre-1984 non-residential water
allotments.
2. Share staff analysis of potential
methodologies for WSR fees and assigning
pre-1984 non-residential water allotments.
3. Share customer engagement for 2024,
including a timeline and identification of
impacted parties.
4. Answer questions and seek feedback.
2
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 65
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions for the Planning and Zoning Commission
1. What general questions do you have?
2. How might you or the community you represent be impacted by these changes?
3. What other input do you have?
3
Headline Copy Goes HerePurpose: WSR and Water Allotments
A form of WSR and water allotments has been in place
since the mid-1960s. The purpose is to:
• Ensure secure water sources and protect the
watershed
• Provide a financial mechanism to ensure current
and future assets are adequate to meet community
water supply and service needs
• Balance current needs and supply and future
potential needs and acquisitions
4
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 66
Headline Copy Goes Here
Utilities Water
Service Area
Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map
~36,000 water taps (32,000 customers)
~3,000 are commercial (1,900 customers)
GMA
Major Streets
City Limits
Railroad
ELCO Water District
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
Fort Collins Utilities (Water)
Sunset Water District
West Fort Collins Water District
Water Districts
5
Headline Copy Goes HereTimeline
April 9
Work Session
April/May Aug./Sept.2025Oct./Nov.June/July
ImplementationContinue
Engagement
First and Second Reading Regular Meetings
Initiate Engagement
Economic Advisory
Board
Fort Collins Area
Chamber of
Commerce
July 9
Work Session
Boards and
Commissions,
Affordable
Housing Focus
Group
Wrap Up
Engagement
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 67
Headline Copy Goes HereWater Supply Requirements, Water Allotments, and Surcharges
Water Supply
Requirement
Fee paid by new
development and some
redevelopment to ensure
adequate water
dedication to serve.
Assessed during
development and
redevelopment
Water Allotment
A volume of water
dedicated to a
non-residential user.
Two-thirds of non-
residential accounts have
assigned allotments.
Based on WSR
Excess Water
Use Surcharge
A charge assessed to
non-residential accounts
with allotments when they
exceed their allotment.
Based on Allotment
7
Headline Copy Goes HereWSR Methodology
• All regional water service providers have a
version of a WSR development fee
• Total fee varies based on water rights
portfolio, infrastructure and ability to support
existing and future customers to meet
community values
• Water scarcity and demand drive the cost of
acquiring new water and impacts the value of
our water rights portfolio
8
7
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 68
Headline Copy Goes HereWater Fund
Water Utility Rates
Rates paid by existing customers
make up approximately 95% of the
water fund revenue.
Development/Redevelopment Fees
New development and redevelopment
within the water service area make up
approximately 5%.
Headline Copy Goes HereWater Rates and Fees
WSR
Commercial
Developers
Residential
Developers
Excess Water
Use
surcharges
Non-residential
customers with
annual water
allotments
Plant
Investment
Fees
Commercial
Developers
Residential
Developers
Rates
Residential
Commercial
9
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 69
Headline Copy Goes Here
WSR Pricing Methodologies
Headline Copy Goes HereOverview of Methodologies
Full Buy-In
• Value of the entire existing water supply system which is expected to serve all existing
and future customers
• Future customers buy in to the entire current system (total value of system/total yield)
Incremental
• Cost to expand the water supply system to serve future customers
• Only reflects the cost of future water rights and infrastructure
Hybrid
• Includes a “buy-in” component for the current water supply system and an
“incremental” component for the future water system needs that have not yet been
purchased or built
• Acknowledges future customers will use portions of the current and future water supply
systems
12
11
12
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 70
Headline Copy Goes HereWSR Historical Methodology
› Recommending
$63,800/AF using
hybrid, cost-based
methodology
2002-2017
› 2018: $17,300/AF
using hybrid method
with market-based
costing
› 2020: $21,500/AF,
updated costing
› 2021: $22,145/AF,
added 3% inflationary
increase
2018-2021
›$68,200/AF, same
methodology with
updated yields, 20%
safety factor, 30%
contingency
2022-current
›$6,500/acre-feet (AF),
based on Colorado
Big-Thompson (CBT)
prices
October 2024
13
Headline Copy Goes HereCurrent Methodology Overview
HYBRID
Buy-in
Existing
water rights
Incremental
Future water
rights and
infrastructure
Total cost to
increase reliability
of water supply
Note: Future water supplies do not provide
adequate reliability without existing portfolio
14
13
14
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 71
Headline Copy Goes HereWater Supply Requirement Fee
WSR = Existing Water + Future Water rights & Infrastructure
Can determine past purchase prices and
costs.
Options on how to value:
• Market price in today’s dollars
• Cost of what was paid plus CPI
• Safety factor
Buy-In
Existing Water Rights
Incremental
Future Water Rights and Infrastructure
Requires modeling and predicting costs
of future water supply needs.
Cost considerations:
• Market-based
• Contingency
• Safety factor
15
Headline Copy Goes HereHybrid Method Pricing Options
*Contingency: Captures uncertainties in future costs
**Safety factor: Captures uncertainties in future demand and supplies (e.g., climate change, development types, etc.)
16
ConsiderationsCostMethod
• Increased by Consumer Price Index over time
• Added infrastructure to buy-in component
• Higher rate impact to existing customers
$63,800/AFCost-based
30% contingency*
20% safety factor**
• Current approach with updated costs
• Higher impact to developers
• Lower rate impact to existing customers
$110,700/AFMarket-based
30% contingency*
20% safety factor**
15
16
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 72
Headline Copy Goes HereMulti-Family Total Water Supply Requirement (Indoor & Outdoor)
2024 Multi-Family
100 bedrooms, 64 dwelling units, 30,504 sq. ft. lot area, 5,535 sq. ft. irrigated area
CostWater Fee
($/AF)
Dedication Amount
(AF)Provider
$1,228,200$120,00010.24Ft. Collins Loveland
$670,900$60,600**11.07East Larimer County
$503,200$47,38010.62Loveland
$472,700$110,7004.27FC Utilities (MB,30%C,20%S)
$375,300$51,5007.29Greeley
$272,400$63,8004.27FC Utilities (CB,30%C,20%S)
$278,300$40,4006.88Westminster
**For larger developments, East Larimer County Water District only allows 30% of its WSR to be met with cash and the remainder must be met with acceptable
water rights, thus the cash equivalent listed here is based on the market value of acceptable water rights.
*MCS=Market-based, 30% contingency, 20% safety factor; CCS=Cost-based, Contingency, 20% safety factor; MC=Market-based, contingency, no safety factor;
CC=Cost-based contingency, no safety factor
Headline Copy Goes HereComparison to Other Providers
1.25 AF
1.25 AF
1.25 AF
1.62 AF
1.72 AF
0.70 AF
0.79 AF
1.00 AF
*MCS=Market-based, 30% contingency, 20% safety factor; CCS=Cost-based, Contingency, 20% safety factor; MC=Market-based, contingency, no safety factor;
CC=Cost-based contingency, no safety factor
FC Utilities (CB,30%C,20%S)
Westminster
FC Utilities Current
Greeley
FC Utilities (MB,30%C,20%S)
Loveland
East Larimer County
Ft. Collins Loveland
Multi-Family (100 bedrooms, 64 dwelling units, 30,504 sq. ft. lot area,
5,535 sq. ft. irrigated area)
17
18
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 73
Headline Copy Goes HereComparison to Other Providers
1.25 AF
1.25 AF
1.25 AF
1.62 AF
1.72 AF
0.70 AF
0.79 AF
1.00 AF
*MCS=Market-based, 30% contingency, 20% safety factor; CCS=Cost-based, Contingency, 20% safety factor; MC=Market-based, contingency, no safety factor;
CC=Cost-based contingency, no safety factor
Loveland
East Larimer County
Ft. Collins Loveland
Westminster
FC Utilities (CB,30%C,20%S)
Greeley
FC Utilities Current
FC Utilities (MB,30%C,20%S)
Typical Restaurant
Headline Copy Goes HereFinancial Impacts
• Estimate 1,024 or 2,000 AF
of water dedication
remaining
• 25 AF/year on average
• Recently less
• Proposed method at $63,800/AF
• $4.5 million less revenue
• 0.5% rate increase over 40 years
• At current fee ($68,200) expect 7-10%
rate increase from 2025-2033
assuming five-year average of revenue
from WSR and surcharges
• ~5% of total
water fund
20
19
20
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 74
Headline Copy Goes Here
*Contingency: Captures uncertainties in future costs
**Safety factor: Captures uncertainties in future demand and supplies (e.g., climate change, development types, etc.)
21
ConsiderationsCostMethod
• Increased by Consumer Price Index over time
• Added infrastructure to buy-in component
• Higher rate impact to existing customers
$63,800/AFCost-based
30% contingency*
20% safety factor**
• Current approach with updated costs
• Higher impact to developers
• Lower rate impact to existing customers
$110,700/AFMarket-based
30% contingency*
20% safety factor**
Summary: Hybrid Method Pricing Options
Headline Copy Goes Here
Methodology for Assigning
Remaining Non-residential Water
Allotments
21
22
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 75
Headline Copy Goes HereWater Allotment Overview
• Proposing to assign
allotments to ~1,000
accounts that do not
have one (1/3 of total)
• Not proposing
additional WSR costs
• Allow 2025 to adjust
use to avoid
surcharges
1965-1984
• Required volume
based on tap size
• Began to assign
allotments to non-
residential accounts
1984
• Allotments based
on business type
2022
• Required volume of
water based on acre of
land served
• No allotments were
assigned
2024
23
Headline Copy Goes HereWhy Update Now?
• Consistency
•Subject to same requirement for all customers
• Fairness
•Customers without allotments can use as much
water as they desire without surcharges
•Does not capture costs for water supply system use
that is above what was paid for through a WSR fee
•A higher WSR fee and surcharges increases the
inequity between customers who are subject
to surcharges and those who are not
• Conservation
•Programs and incentives for customers that would
regularly go over their allotment
24
23
24
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 76
Headline Copy Goes HereAllotment Methodology Overview
ImpactsHistoryDescriptionMethod
•Lowest impact
•Could assign a higher allotment than
needed making it difficult to
identify inefficiencies
Selects the greater between
average historical use and
tap credit
Hybrid
(Tap and Avg. Use)
• Could underestimate allotment resulting in
potential unwarranted surcharges
Most current allotments
assigned with this
methodology
Assigns a volume based on
meter size
Tap Credit
• Could assign a lower allotment compared
to the volume received with a tap credit,
undervaluing WSR
• Could assign a higher allotment than
customer needed making it difficult to
identify water use inefficiencies
Have not assigned this
way
Assigns a volume based on
average historical water use
per tap (e.g., five years)
Average
Historical Use
• Best reflects actual water use need
• Limited data to fully evaluate impacts (44
customers assigned this way)
• Time-intensive process
Current methodology
for setting allotments
Assigns based on business
type and specific use (e.g., #
rooms in hotel, square
footage of restaurant,
landscape details, etc.)
Business Type
Headline Copy Goes HerePotential Impact
In the last five years, number of new allotment accounts with
taps three inches or lower that would have:
154 (50-75 each year) Been charged an EWU surcharge
41 Exceeded allotment three or more years
6 Paid an annual surcharge more than $20,000
Total EWU surcharges collected in each of the last five years would have been $135,000 - $250,000 at the
2024 EWU rate.
25
26
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 77
Headline Copy Goes HerePotential Impacts
Estimated sum of
EWU in max year
Number of accounts
paying EWU in max
year
Top three business
types most likely
impacted
$169,54531Irrigation
$62,47422Mixed use (strip malls)
$111,50838Restaurants
Headline Copy Goes HerePotential Impacts
Under this methodology, most customers would not be
significantly affected
Courses of Action
• Recommend a one-year grace period where surcharges
would not be assessed.
• Engage with customers one-on-one over the coming months.
• Explore exception process.
• Encourage conservation projects as appropriate.
Considerations
• Large accounts
• HOAs
• City Parks accounts
27
28
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 78
Headline Copy Goes Here
Customer Engagement
Headline Copy Goes HereDesired Outcomes
• Build relationships
• Help customers understand their
unique circumstances
• Seek feedback to improve
project decision
• Deliver feedback to core team to
incorporate into decision making
29
30
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 79
Headline Copy Goes HereCommunication and Engagement
Project update through email and mail
•Developers and interested parties
•Customers who have exceeded their allotment
Notified potential new allotment customers in
person, email, and mail
•Included information on proposed allotment size
Our City page
•Questionnaire
Webinar
•Education for potential new allotment customers
Lunch and Learn
•Internal staff
Ongoing
•One-on-one office hours
Headline Copy Goes HereFeedback We Have Heard
• Minimal concerns with assigning allotments
• Questions from customers to help them understand how they will be impacted by changes
• Considerations for affordable housing providers
31
32
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 80
Headline Copy Goes HereQuestions
1. What general questions do you have?
2. How might you or the community you represent be
impacted by these changes?
3. What other input do you have?
33
Headline Copy Goes Here
34
33
34
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 81
Headline Copy Goes HereHybrid Method Pricing Options
*Contingency: Captures uncertainties in future costs
**Safety factor: Captures uncertainties in future demand and supplies (e.g., climate change, development types, etc.)
ConsiderationsDraft CostMethod
• Current approach with updated costs
• Highest impact to developers
$116,500/AFMarket-based
30% contingency*
20% safety factor**
• Safety factor removed$97,100/AFMarket-based
30% contingency
• Development costs reflect Utilities’
investment in water rights proactively (since
late 1800s)
<$68,200/AFCost-based,
30% contingency
20% safety factor
• Safety factor removed
• Lower than current fee
• Highest impact to existing customers
$59,900/AFCost-based
30% contingency
35
Headline Copy Goes HereBreakdown of a Bill
35
36
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 82
Main Office
3858 N Garden
Center Way #205
Boise, ID 83703
California
2012 H St. #100
Sacramento, CA 95811
Northwest
20522 NE 116th Cir.
Brush Prairie, WA 98606
Southwest
4747 N 7th St. #412
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Rocky Mountain
205 S Meldrum St,
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Revised Memorandum
Purpose and Background
One approach the City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins” or “City”) is evaluating to set Water Supply Requirement
(“WSR”) fees considers the market value of the water rights the City presently owns that could be allocated to
new development. In early 2023, Fort Collins engaged WestWater Research, LLC (“WestWater”) via subcontract
to FCS Group (“FCS”) to provide a summary valuation of the City’s water rights portfolio. WestWater provided
a consultation of water asset prices by its March 17, 2023, memorandum, Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
(the “2023 Valuation,” attached as Appendix A).
Prices for some of Fort Collins water assets have changed over the 14 months since the 2023 Valuation was
developed. Notably, there has been a general softening in Colorado-Big Thompson (“CBT”) prices throughout
2023 and early 2024, while certain ditch company shares have seen prices rise from a year ago. At the request
of Fort Collins, WestWater prepared the following update to the 2023 Valuation that incorporates comparable
sales transaction data from March 2023 through May 2024. For this update, all valuation methods described
in the 2023 Valuation were retained. Furthermore, all ownership levels and share conversion factors remain
constant from the 2023 Valuation.
Valuation Update
WestWater regularly monitors water rights transactions in Northern Colorado. Since the 2023 Valuation,
WestWater recorded over 100 transactions with known pricing for the water asset classes owned by Fort
Collins and considered in the WSR. The transactions total nearly 500 acre-feet (“AF”) of transferrable volume.1
A summary of transactions is provided in Table 1 below. In Table 1 and throughout this memorandum, all prices
have been adjusted to April 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).
1 WestWater has recorded additional transactions in Northern Colorado beyond the 107 listed herein, which lack confirmed
pricing.
To: City of Fort Collins
From: WestWater Research, LLC
Date: June 11, 2024
Re: Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 83
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
Page 2
Table 1: Summary of Water Rights Transactions with Known Pricing (March 2023 – May 2024)2
Water Asset # Sales
Volume,
units or
shares
Maximum
Price,
$2024/unit
or share
Minimum
Price,
$2024/unit
or share
Weighted
Average,
$2024/unit
or share
CBT Units 71 1,077 $75,000 $45,000 $62,000
North Poudre Irrigation Co. 27 80.5 $250,000 $225,000 $241,000
Water Supply and Storage Co. 3 5.75 $4,000,000 $3,891,000 $3,948,000
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. 2 1.17 $409,000 $301,000 $393,000
Arthur Irrigation Co. 1 1 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
New Mercer Ditch Co. 1 5 $1,523,000 $1,523,000 $1,523,000
Windy Gap Units3 2 3 $4,607,000 $3,992,000 $4,197,000
Prices for several water assets owned by Fort Collins have changed since the 2023 Valuation. Table 2
below compares March 2023 values with values estimated using more recent comparable sales
transactions. At the direction of the City, WestWater updated values for any assets with +/-5% change in
value since the 2023 Valuation was prepared. Brief descriptions of pricing changes follow the table below.
Table 2: Comparison of March 2023 and May 2024 Water Asset Values
Water Asset March 2023
Value per AF
May 2024
Value per AF
% Change,
Mar 2023 to
May 2024
Update to
Fort Collins
Valuation
CBT Units $100,000 $85,700 -14.3% Yes
North Poudre Irrigation Co. $104,900 $110,000 4.9% No
Water Supply and Storage Co. $60,600 $60,600 0.0% No
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. $52,700 $21,800 -58.6% Yes
Arthur Irrigation Co. $52,700 $55,200 4.7% No
New Mercer Ditch Co. $51,100 $69,000 35.0% Yes
Windy Gap Units $63,200 $76,300 20.7% Yes
• Colorado-Big Thompson. CBT represents a sizeable portion (26.2%) of the City’s water portfolio. CBT
pricing is also used to value other independently owned City assets, such as its Senior Direct water
rights and Reuse Plan water. In the 2023 Valuation, WestWater placed a value of $70,000 per unit on
CBT based on volume-weighted pricing from 2022 Q4 and 2023 Q1 transactions. Since that time,
WestWater has collected pricing for 1,077 units of CBT indicating a volume-weighted average price of
$62,000. More recent transactions indicate a current value of $60,000 per unit or $85,700 per AF at
a 0.7 AF per CBT unit conversion factor. Nearly 300 units have closed within the past two months or
are under contract at this price.
• North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”). Unlike CBT, prices for NPIC shares have increased in the past
year. Volume-weighted pricing so far in 2024 averaged $246,500 per share, up from $235,000 per share
2 Other water assets owned by Fort Collins have not transacted in the past year and are omitted from Table 1.
3 Fort Collins does not own Windy Gap units, but pricing of Windy Gap is used to estimate value of the Joe Wright – Michigan
Ditch system.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 84
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
Page 3
estimated in March 2023, which represents a unit value of $110,000 per AF using the City’s conversion
factor of 2.24 AF per NPIC share. However, this change is less than the 5% threshold considered for this
update, and NPIC values remain unchanged for the purposes of the WSR.
• Water Supply and Storage Company (“WSSC”). There have been 5.75 shares of WSSC with known pricing
transacted in the last year. Prices remain largely unchanged from the 2023 Valuation, at $4,000,000 per
share or $60,600 per AF.
• New Mercer Ditch Company (“New Mercer”). A notable sale of New Mercer occurred in early 2024 in
which 5 shares of New Mercer were transacted for $69,000 per AF or approximately $1,500,000 per share.
The shares were subsequently dedicated to the East Larimer County Water District (“ELCO”) by a developer
for raw water dedication. This sale indicates a new, higher price point for New Mercer and, because ELCO
dedication is a market driver for other Fort Collins asset values – the Arthur Irrigation Company (“Arthur”)
and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company (“Larimer No. 2”) – the sale influences these values.
• Arthur Irrigation Company and Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company. There have been few
transactions of Arthur (1 transaction) and Larimer No. 2 (no transactions) since March 2023. Like New
Mercer, Arthur and Larimer No. 2 shares may be dedicated to ELCO in exchange for water credits that are
redeemable for water taps in that water district (“ELCO Credits”). Each ELCO Credit is worth one AF of
water dedication. The 2023 Valuation considered prices for ELCO Credits to estimate prices of Southside
Ditches. ELCO Credits prices appear to have risen slightly since March 2023, when WestWater estimated
the mean value of ELCO Credits at $65,800 per AF. Recent asking prices for credits range from $68,000 per
AF to near $70,000. The recent New Mercer sale provides support at $69,000 per AF.
Following the 2023 Valuation methodology, WestWater applied a 20% reduction to the ELCO Credit price
($69,000 per AF) to account for the cost of engineering , diligence and change of use risks, yielding a value
of $55,200 per AF for Arthur and Larimer No. 2. This value represents a less than 5% increase from the
2023 Valuation; therefore, prices for these assets are not updated herein.
• Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company (“PVLC”). The 2023 Valuation used ELCO Credit prices as a proxy
for valuing PVLC shares. As of March 2023, PVLC was listed among the rights that ELCO accepts and the
2023 Valuation assumed that, provided a sufficient quantity of PVLC shares were available with suitable
title, HCU, and dry up, ELCO developers would pursue the PVLC market. However, ELCO’s policy changed
and the water district no longer lists PVLC among the water rights accepted for raw water dedication.
Therefore, for this update, PVLC is valued using the comparable sales approach.
WestWater has recorded six sales of PVLC in the past five years with known pricing. Of these, two sale
occurred since the 2023 Valuation. The volume-weighted, inflation-adjusted average price of PVLC in
the past two years is $404,900 per share or $21,800 per AF using an 18.6 AF per share conversion
factor.
• Chaffee Ditch. The 2023 Valuation valued Chaffee Ditch using the replacement methodology assuming
the yield of the Chaffee Ditch would be replaced with PVLC. As explained above, PVLC values are reduced
as they are no longer accepted for ELCO dedication. Chaffee Ditch values are likewise changed in this
update to reflect lower PVLC prices. The value of Chaffee Ditch is estimated at $23,000 per AF using the
PVLC unit value above adjusted for the present value of future assessment payments.
• Senior Directs. Senior Directs were valued in the 2023 Valuation using a replacement methodology, in
which it was assumed that the yield of Senior Directs would be replaced with the firm yield of CBT, that is,
0.5 AF per CBT unit. With the reduction in CBT prices described above, the value of the Senior Directs
decreased to $123,000 per AF.
• Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch System (“JWMD”). Yields from the JWMD system were valued using the
replacement methodology. JWMD yields both single use and wholly consumable water. In the 2023
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 85
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
Page 4
Valuation, single use water was valued using average yields of CBT (0.7 AF per CBT unit). Wholly
consumable water from JWMD was valued using unfirmed Windy Gap prices. Decreased CBT prices will
reduce the value of JWMD single use yield, while recent Windy Gap sales have increased the replacement
value for JWMD wholly consumable yield. Recent sales of unfirmed Windy Gap units indicate a market
price of $76,300 per AF.4 The resultant blended value for JWMD is $82,900 per AF as shown in Table 3
below, an increase of $5,000 per AF from the 2023 Valuation.
Table 3: Updated Joe Wright Michigan Ditch System Replacement Cost Analysis
Component JWMD Singe
Use Water
JWMD Wholly
Consumable
Water
Average Yield, AF 1,650 3,850
Replacement Source CBT Windy Gap
Replacement Source Value, per AF $85,700 $76,300
Present Value of Assessments, per AF $2,300 $8,500
JWMD O&M Savings, per AF ($2,900) ($2,900)
Replacement Cost per AF $85,100 $81,900
Blended Replacement Cost, per AF $82,900
• Reuse Plan. The 2023 Valuation estimated the value of the Reuse Plan by the replacement value of
comparable supply, specifically firm CBT yield. Using updated CBT prices, the value of Reuse Plan yield
is estimated at $123,000 per AF.
Conclusions
Results of the updated valuation are presented in Table 4 below. The proration of yield is estimated from the
average system yield numbers as shown in Table 1 of the 2023 Valuation. The proration of yield is multiplied
by the unit prices for each asset to yield the marginal value of each asset. That marginal value represents the
value attributed to each asset comprising the purchase or sale of one additional AF of the City’s water r ights
portfolio, which when summed across all assets provides the total marginal buy-in value. Based on this analysis,
the present buy-in value of the City’s existing water rights portfolio is $90,500 per AF.
4 Based on 55 AF per unfirmed Windy Gap unit.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 86
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
Page 5
Table 4: Updated Valuation Results5
Asset Value per AF
Percent of
Total Average
System Yield,
AF
Marginal
Value
CBT Units $85,700 26.20% $22,500
North Poudre Irrigation Company $104,900 15.80% $16,600
Water Supply and Storage Company $60,600 3.50% $2,100
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company $21,800 6.20% $1,400
Arthur Irrigation Company $52,700 2.50% $1,300
Larimer County Canal No.2 $52,700 4.70% $2,500
New Mercer Ditch Company $69,000 2.30% $1,600
Poudre River Direct Flow $123,000 22.40% $27,600
Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch System $82,900 10.90% $9,000
Chaffee Ditch $23,000 0.90% $200
Reuse Plan (PRPA) $123,000 4.60% $5,700
Total $90,500
5 Blue highlighted rows indicate asset values that were updated from the 2023 Valuation.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 87
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets – May 2024 Update
Page 6
Appendix A:
2023 Valuation
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 88
Main Office
3858 N Garden
Center Way #205
Boise, ID 83703
California
2012 H Street #100
Sacramento, CA
95811
Northwest
20522 NE 116th Cir.
Brush Prairie, WA
98606
Southwest
4747 N 7th Street #412
Phoenix, AZ
85014
Rocky Mountain
320 E Vine Drive #203
Fort Collins, CO
80524
Draft Memorandum
Purpose
The City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins” or “City”) engaged FCS Group (“FCS”) to provide a review
of the City’s methodology for calculating Water Supply Requirements (“WSR”). One
component of the WSR (also commonly termed a cash-in-lieu rate or “CIL”) considers the
monetary value of the water rights that the City presently owns and that, in the current model,
are incrementally allocated to new development. WestWater Research, LLC (“WestWater”)
subcontracted to FCS to provide a quantification of the value associated with the City’s
existing water rights portfolio.
This memorandum presents an analysis of values associated with the City’s various water
rights holdings. Focus is given to water sources used for potable water deliveries; water rights
used for non-potable irrigation of municipal properties are omitted from the analysis.
Background
Over its history, Fort Collins has accumulated a diverse water rights portfolio consisting of
senior direct rights to the Cache La Poudre River (“Senior Directs”), shares in Poudre basin
irrigation ditch companies, transbasin water from the North Platte River basin, Colorado-Big
Thompson (“CBT”) water sourced from the Colorado River basin, and water sourced from
trade agreements with regional partners. The current portfolio has been incrementally
expanded as the City has grown. The market values for such water rights have also grown.
Water rights values in the Poudre Basin have generally outpaced both inflation and local land
values over the past decade.
New development benefits from past investments in the City’s water rights portfolio. New
development must pay a WSR, which is a fee or credit paid for raw water supply to serve
additional water taps. The current WSR fee is $0.2093 per gallon or $68,200 per acre-foot
(AF). The City’s existing methodology for calculating WSR considers the future cost of
constructing new source-water infrastructure (e.g., the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir),
the future costs of planned water rights acquisitions, and the value of the City’s existing water
rights portfolio. This methodology acknowledges that new development must pay its way to
build infrastructure and buy additional water, but also benefits by accessing the City’s existing
water rights portfolio. The portion of the WSR attributed to the value of the existing portfolio
is herein termed the “Buy-In Component” and is the primary subject of this memorandum.
To: City of Fort Collins
From: WestWater Research, LLC
Date: March 17, 2023
Re: Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 89
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 2
Buy -In Component Methodology
Existing Methodology
The City’s current WSR model estimates the Buy-In Component as follows:
1. The current model estimates the unit value (price per AF) of each potable water asset
in the portfolio. Unit values developed either from known share prices (or unit prices
for CBT) or estimates of the per AF price of assets.
2. Unit values are multiplied by either number of shares or units owned or the average
headgate yield of each asset to yield a total portfolio value ($3.17 billion). The
headgate yield is volume of water attributable to each right available on average at
the river diversion. The headgate yield is typically far greater than the net yield of
water rights to the City after deducting return flow obligations, volumetric limitations
in water court decrees, exchanges, storage operations, and losses.
3. The portfolio value is divided by the firm yield of the portfolio after addition of future
infrastructure projects (31,678 AF). The firm yield is defined by Fort Collins as the
maximum demand that can be satisfied during a design 1-in-50 year drought. The
resulting unit value ($100,100 per AF) represents the cost of firm yield from the City’s
water right portfolio.
4. The unit firm yield cost is prorated between existing and future customers. The City
estimates that through the addition of new source-water infrastructure and new water
right acquisitions, it will increase its firm yield by 9,153 AF. Of this amount, 6,508 AF is
allocated to meeting existing customers’ needs and 2,654 AF is allocated for future
customers.
5. The 2,654 AF allocated to future customers’ needs is multiplied by the unit firm yield
value ($100,100 per AF) to yield the total Buy-In Component ($265 million).
6. The Buy-In Component is divided by the expected increase its firm yield (9,153 AF)
resulting in a unit Buy-In Component rate of $28,900 per AF. The Buy-In Component
is one of three costs making up the overall WSR fee rate.
Proposed Methodology
WestWater proposes a modification to the City’s current approach to estimating the Buy-In
Component, namely that it considers the marginal value of water in the portfolio rather than
the total portfolio value. The approach of valuing the entire water right portfolio is
unsupported by market conditions. While the sum of parts of the overall portfolio may add
to $3.17 billion, it is highly likely that no buyer along the Front Range is able to pay or make
use of the entire portfolio. Many, but not all, of the City’s water rights are unable to be
conveyed out of the Poudre Basin and portions of the South Platte Basin, and the absorption
rate in these areas does not support a purchase of the entire portfolio. Further, were the total
volume of the City’s portfolio made available, market activity and prices would likely decrease
significantly.
Alternatively, we propose calculating the Buy-In-Component as a marginal cost of water.
Stated another way, the methodology considers the purchase or sale of one additional AF of
the City’s existing water rights portfolio. That AF would be comprised of the various water
assets currently in portfolio. The proposed method calculates the fractional value of each
asset attributing to that marginal AF.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 90
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 3
Specifically, the proposed methodology is as follows:
1. As with the current WSR model, the proposed methodology estimates the unit value
(price per AF) of each asset in the portfolio. A discussion of valuation methods for each
water asset is found in sections below.
2. An average system yield for each asset is determined. System yield is defined as the
average volume of water that could be delivered into the Fort Collins treated water
system after accounting for return flow obligations, volumetric limits, and other
factors. Average system yields are estimated from a variety of sources including
measured yields, water court decrees, and estimates of historic consumptive use
(“HCU”). Estimates of average system yield for each water asset that Fort Collins owns
are listed in Table 1 below.
3. The proration of yield provided by each asset is determined by dividing the average
system yield of each asset by the total average system yield of all assets (50,424 AF
per Table 1). This value represents the proportional volume of each asset (in
percentage) in an AF at the margin.
4. The proration of yield is multiplied by the unit prices for each asset and summed to
provide the marginal buy-in value per AF.
Table 1: Fort Collins Potable Water Assets and Yields
Asset Owned Shares
or Units
Average
System Yield
per Share or
Unit, AF1
Average
System Yield,
AF2
Percent of
Average
System Yield,
AF
Mutually Owned Assets
CBT Units 18,855 0.70 13,199 26.2%
North Poudre Irrigation Company 3,567.75 2.24 7,992 15.8%
Water Supply and Storage Company 26.42 66.00 1,744 3.5%
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company 168.66 18.60 3,137 6.2%
Arthur Irrigation Company 627.86 2.00 1,256 2.5%
Larimer County Canal No.2 Ditch Company 99.86 23.80 2,377 4.7%
New Mercer Ditch Company 70.09 16.70 1,171 2.3%
Independently Owned Assets
Poudre River Senior Direct Rights
N/A N/A
11,300 22.4%
Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch System 5,500 10.9%
Chaffee Ditch 440 0.9%
Reuse Plan (Platte River Power Authority) 2,310 4.6%
Total 50,424 100%
1 Share conversion factors (AF per share values) were developed from water court decrees, estimates of HCU,
and conversion rates used by neighboring water districts. Fort Collins has historically used headgate yields in its
WSR model. Average system yields for individual assets were not provided.
2 Average system yields for independently owned assets were provided by Fort Collins staff.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 91
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 4
Water Asset Valuation
The following sections provide an estimate of unit value for each water asset in the City’s
potable water rights portfolio. A variety of valuation methods can be applied to estimate unit
values. Wherever possible, WestWater relied on comparable sales. Comparable sales are
typically the best indicator of value as they represent the current willingness to pay of likely
buyers. However, some of the City’s water assets do not have comparable sales (e.g., Senior
Directs), as such assets are rarely transacted or have not been transacted in recent enough
time to reflect the current market. In these cases, WestWater estimated unit value via the
replacement cost approach. In the replacement cost approach, alternative sources of water
are identified with similar reliability and water rights attributes as the assets being valued, and
for which comparable sales data is available. Replacement costs are adjusted to reflect any
ongoing costs or cost savings associated with the source and replacement supplies.
Colorado-Big Thompson Units
The CBT system delivers water from the Colorado River Basin to the Front Range through a
vast network of pumps, tunnels, canals, and reservoirs. Fort Collins is one of the largest
owners of CBT with 18,855 units. Each unit of CBT yields a variable amount of water each
year, set by a quota from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern
Water”). The long-term average quota is approximately 0.7 AF per unit.
CBT units are actively traded, and the CBT market is among the most transparent in Colorado.
Figure 1 provides CBT transactions since 2010 on a price per AF basis. WestWater recorded
nearly 450 units of CBT transacting in the fourth quarter of 2022 with an average volume-
weighted price of $70,800 per unit or $101,000 per AF. Some softening of the CBT market
has been detected in 2023. We estimate the current value to be $70,000 per unit or $100,000
per AF.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 92
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 5
Figure 1: Colorado-Big Thompson Transactions3
North Poudre Irrigation Company Shares
The City owns 3,567.75 shares of the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”) and is the
largest shareholder in the ditch company. NPIC supplies irrigation water to lands north of Fort
Collins, but is majority owned by Fort Collins and other municipal water providers. NPIC owns
40,000 CBT units, and each of the 10,000 shareholders in the system is allocated four units
of CBT. The CBT component yield varies based on the Northern Water quota and is also
charged system losses, estimated at 20%. The long-term average yield of the CBT
component of the NPIC shares is calculated as 2.24 AF per share. While NPIC shares also
yield native Poudre Basin water rights, the native component of NPIC shares has not been
changed and is negated in this analysis.
An active market for NPIC shares exists and prices closely follow CBT rates. Figure 2 provides
per AF sale prices of NPIC since 2010. Share prices in 2022 ranged from $205,000 to $250,000
per share. The average volume-weighted price in the previous six months is $235,000 per
share or $104,900 per AF, which is used in this analysis. Sale prices have shown some
declines recently, but not enough sales have been recorded recently to justify a lower value
estimate.
That NPIC per AF prices exceed CBT can be explained by the fact that other regional water
providers accept NPIC for raw water dedication at a rate of 2.6 AF per share or greater. At
that dedication rate, NPIC shares are priced at $90,400 per AF. Purchase of NPIC shares by
developers for raw water dedication is likely the predominant driver in the market.
3 All historic pricing information in this report has been adjusted to present day dollars using the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for all urban users.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 93
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 6
Figure 2: North Poudre Irrigation Company Transactions4
Water Supply and Storage Company Shares
The Water Supply and Storage Company (“WSSC”) is a large irrigation ditch system serving
northern Larimer and Weld Counties. Its water is sourced from native Poudre Basin water
rights and transbasin water sourced from the Colorado River (via the Grand Ditch) and the
Laramie River (via the Laramie Poudre Tunnel and Skyline Ditch). The company owns several
reservoirs including Long Draw Reservoir, Chambers Reservoir, and various plains reservoirs.
The City owns 26.42 WSSC shares, which have been changed in water court for municipal
use. The City’s change decree is complex and the City has not yet fully utilized its changed
WSSC shares; therefore, the average system yield of the City’s shares is undetermined. For
this analysis, we assume an average yield of 66 AF per share estimated across multiple
change decrees entered by Fort Collins and other municipal water providers.
An active and competitive market exists for WSSC shares, as shown in Figure 3. Multiple
transactions representing six shares have closed or are nearing closing in the last four months
at $4,000,000 per share ($60,600 per AF). As WSSC prices have steadily escalated in the
past five years, we believe these recent sales indicate the new market price. For this analysis,
we apply a unit value of $60,600 per AF for WSSC shares.
4 Prices are CPI adjusted to 2023 dollars.
Based on 2.24 AF per share
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 94
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 7
Figure 3: Water Supply and Storage Company Transactions5
Southside Ditches
The Arthur Irrigation Company, Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company, and New Mercer
Irrigation Company, collectively referred to as the “Southside Ditches,” historically irrigated
lands south of the Poudre River inside what is now Fort Collins. A large majority of the
irrigated areas of these ditches have been urbanized and Fort Collins now owns a majority of
shares in all companies: approximately 628 shares of Arthur, 100 shares of Larimer No. 2, and
70 shares of New Mercer. Other regional municipal water providers also own shares including
the East Larimer County Water District (“ELCO”), Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, and
North Weld County Water District (collectively, the “Tri-Districts”).
Relative to other ditch companies in this analysis, Southside Ditches sales volumes are low,
thought to be largely because Fort Collins and other municipal water providers already own
the vast majority of shares. Based on share transfer records from the ditch companies, only
six transactions have occurred since 2019 with an average transaction volume of 11.2 AF.
Figure 4 below provides transaction data, presented on a per AF basis. No confirmed pricing
data could be found for Larimer No. 2 transactions.
5 Prices are CPI adjusted to 2023 dollars.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 95
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 8
Table 2: Transaction Number and Volume of Southside Ditches Since 2019
Ditch Company Number of
Transactions
Total Shares
Transacted
Total
Volume
Transacted,
AF
Average
Volume per
Transaction,
AF
Arthur Irrigation Company 1 1.0 2.0 2.0
New Mercer Irrigation Company 6 4.5 74.8 12.5
Larimer County #2 Ditch Company 2 1.0 23.8 11.9
Total 9 6 101 11
Figure 4: Southside Ditches Transactions6
There are three primary buyers in the Southside Ditches market: municipal water providers
including Fort Collins, the Tri-Districts, and the City of Greeley; small-acreage irrigators; and
buyers seeking to dedicate the shares to ELCO (“ELCO Dedicators”). Among these buyers,
transaction prices vary widely. ELCO Dedicators appear willing to pay high prices for shares
of Southside Ditches, with some exceptions as explained below.
ELCO Dedication
Southside Ditches shares may be dedicated to ELCO in exchange for water credits that are
redeemable for water taps in that water district (“ELCO Credits”). Each ELCO Credit is worth
one AF of water dedication. There is an active market for ELCO Credits among ELCO
Dedicators and developers seeking water taps. ELCO maintains a list of water rights it accepts
for conversion to ELCO Credits, including Southside Ditches, NPIC, WSSC, and CBT. Thus,
prices for Southside Ditches are influenced by the price of these other water assets. Three
transactions of New Mercer Ditch shares by ELCO Dedicators in 2021 and 2022 had a volume-
6 Prices are CPI adjusted to 2023 dollars.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 96
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 9
weighted, CPI adjusted price of $51,100 per AF. These were sales of shares with dry-up
covenants and confirmed HCU.
Dedication to ELCO can be a costly and lengthy process. ELCO must be assured the
dedicated shares can be changed in water court to municipal use and it conducts sometimes
intensive engineering due diligence on shares. ELCO also charged fees for dedication. As a
result, many ELCO Dedicators seek economy of scale and are unwilling to seek out or
purchase small-volume shares. Thus, prices paid for small-volume shares tend to be far less
than the price paid by ELCO Dedicators. Furthermore, because there is a limited number of
volume and potential sellers in the Southside Ditches market, particularly for sellers of Arthur
and Larimer No. 2, many developers are not actively seeking out sellers or engaging brokers
in the market. As a result, it is an opaque market in which shareowners are not aware of
comparable sales. With the exception of the three aforementioned New Mercer transactions,
other recent comparable sales shown in Figure 4 were small volume and unlikely to receive
ELCO Developer prices.
In valuing the City’s Southside Ditches portfolio, we assumed the City’s shares would
command the prices paid by ELCO Developers. The City’s shares are available in sufficient
volume to attract ELCO Developers and have been previously quantified in water court.
Prices paid for ELCO Credits provide a useful surrogate for estimating Southside Ditches
values.
ELCO Credit Market
WestWater identified three completed sales of ELCO Credits in the past year. Given the
limited sample size, WestWater also contacted the seller and potential buyers of ELCO
Credits currently on the market to collect the bid and ask prices.7 A total of 64.7 ELCO Credits
have been transacted, with a weighted, CPI adjusted price of $65,800 per AF.
WestWater next collected information on the expected spread between the per AF cost of
ditch company shares dedicated for ELCO Credits and the expected credit sale price. This
spread accounts for the cost of engineering and title diligence, the cost of capital between
when the shares are purchased and the credits are sold, the risk to capital of the shares being
denied for ELCO Credits, and the profit expected of the ELCO Dedicator. WestWater
interviewed three ELCO Dedicators and developers with experience in the ELCO Credit
market, who indicated that they price shares between 70% and 90% of ELCO Credits
depending on the developer’s needs and timeline and the share characteristics, namely title
history, HCU history, and dry-up covenants. Assuming a midpoint value of 80%, Southside
Ditches shares could be valued at 80% of the recent average ELCO Credit sale price ($65,800
per AF) or $52,700 per AF.
This value is close to the average comparable sales data for New Mercer shares - $51,100 per
AF. Furthermore, WestWater interviewed two potential buyers (separate from the ELCO
Dedicators and developers interviewed above) for their willingness to pay for Southside
Ditches provided such shares are assured for conversion to ELCO Credits. Such buyers
indicated a current willingness to pay between $50,000 and $55,000 per AF. Taken in whole,
these data substantiate an estimated Southside Ditches value of $52,700 per AF.
7 WestWater rarely utilizes values from incomplete transactions. However, the subject pending sale was
included because the bid-ask spread was small (we used the average) and was within the expected range.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 97
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 10
For this analysis, we apply a unit value of $51,100 per AF for New Mercer shares based on
comparable sales and $52,700 per AF for shares of Arthur and Larimer No. 2.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company Shares
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (“PVLC”) diverts from the Poudre River and irrigates lands
generally west of Fort Collins. Fort Collins owns nearly 80% of shares in the PVLC. A small
amount is owned by other public entities, with the remainder held by a few large irrigators
and many hobby-sized farmers. A majority of individual shareholders in the company own
small volumes (less than 10 AF).
The market for PVLC is small and shares similar characteristic with the Southside Ditches
market. Since 2019, 31 shares transfers have been recorded by the PVLC company
representing a total volume of 149 AF. The average transaction size is less than 5 AF.
Although ELCO accepts PVLC for dedication, ELCO Dedicators are not active in the market,
presumably because there are very few large volume transactions available. In fact, ELCO
has never received a PVLC share for dedication. Transactions for which pricing data are
available have nearly all been between irrigators and at relatively low values, as shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5: Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company Transactions8
Provided a sufficient quantity of PVLC shares were available with suitable title, HCU, and dry-
up, ELCO Dedicators and developers indicated they would pursue the PVLC market. The
City’s PVLC shares are available in sufficient volume and would command ELCO Developer
prices. Therefore, PVLC values are equated to the discounted price of recent ELCO Credit
sales, or $52,700 per AF.
8 Prices are CPI adjusted to 2023 dollars.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 98
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 11
Senior Directs
The City has some of the most senior direct flow rights on the Poudre River, which are able
to be diverted year-round for municipal use. The rights yield on average 11,300 AF per year.
Fort Collins staff have indicated that because of their seniority, they are extremely reliable.
WestWater could not identify any recent sales of water rights with similar characteristics as
the Senior Directs. While many older cities (e.g., Denver, Boulder, Greeley) own senior direct
water rights, they rarely if ever are marketed. Consequently, WestWater approximated the
value of the Senior Directs by estimating their replacement value at the margin. The
replacement value approach assumed the following:
1. Each AF of the Senior Directs would be replaced by one AF of CBT. 9 CBT and Senior
Directs share several important attributes: both are deliverable to the Fort Collins
water system, both are divertible year-round, and both are single use water sources
(i.e., the water right cannot be reused).
2. Because the Senior Directs are firm, the replacement CBT would be added at firm
quota, generally considered 50% of 0.5 AF per unit. Thus, two CBT units are needed
to provide 1 AF of firm yield. Using the CBT values described above, the price per firm
yield of CBT is $140,000 per AF.
3. Unlike for Senior Directs, CBT owners must pay annual assessments, which are added
to the replacement cost. Assessments for open rate municipal CBT units are $50.55
per unit in 2023. On a firm yield basis, assessments would be $101.10 per AF. The
present value of these assessment payments equates to approximately $3,200 at a
3% discount rate over a 100-year term.10
4. Operation and maintenance (“O&M”) costs for Senior Directs are assumed negligible
and are omitted from this analysis.
The replacement approach yields an estimated value for Senior Directs of $143,200 per AF.
Joe Wright and Michigan Ditch System
Fort Collins owns and operates the Michigan Ditch, which diverts waters from headwaters of
Michigan Creek, tributary to the North Platte River, near Cameron Peak. The water is
conveyed to the Poudre Basin via Joe Wright Creek and is stored and managed in the City’s
7,200 AF Joe Wright Reservoir. Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir are operated in
tandem and for the purposes of this analysis, the yield and value of the water rights from the
two assets are grouped.
City staff indicate the average yield from the Joe Wright – Michigan Ditch (“JWMD”) system is
approximately 5,500 AF per year. Approximately 3,850 AF of this yield is wholly consumable
water (i.e., the water can be used and reused to extinction). Wholly consumable water is
sourced from the transbasin imports of Michigan Ditch water. The remaining 1,650 AF of yield
is single use water primarily sourced from Joe Wright Reservoir water rights. Single use and
wholly consumable water sources are herein valued separately.
9WestWater acknowledges that Northern Water rules currently cap the amount of CBT the City may purchase.
However, the replacement cost approach does not consider physical replacement. Rather, it applies the market
rate of the lowest-cost, marketable asset with similar characteristics as the valued asset.
10 The discount rate was approximated using Fort Collins’s coupon rate in 2021 for an Economic Development
Bond: https://emma.msrb.org/Security/Details/A0D66E5F878355774B910BC783481DBA4.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 99
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 12
As with the Senior Directs, WestWater could not identify any recent sales of water rights with
similar characteristics as the JWMD. We therefore approximated value by estimating their
replacement value at the margin. Furthermore, this analysis does not individually value
infrastructure components; rather, the method assumes that the value of the JWMD per AF
yield reflects the underlying value of the JWMD conveyance and storage assets.
JWMD Single Use Water
The replacement value approach for JWMD single use water assumed the following:
1. Each AF of JWMD single use water would be replaced by one AF of CBT. CBT and
JWMD single use are both deliverable to the Fort Collins water system, can be
delivered year-round, and are single use.
2. Fort Collins provided the yield of JWMD single use water on an average basis,
meaning the replacement CBT would be added at the average quota of 70% of 0.7 AF
per unit. Approximately 1.43 CBT units are needed to provide 1 AF of average yield.
Using the CBT values described above, the price per average yield of CBT is $100,000
per AF.
3. CBT assessments are added to the replacement cost. Annual assessments are for the
replacement CBT would be $72.21 per AF. The present value of these assessment
payments equates to $2,300 at a 3% discount rate over a 100-year term.
4. The City would save O&M costs associated with the JWMD if replaced by CBT.
WestWater assumes a total O&M cost for the JWMD system of $500,000 per year,
based on costs of a similar municipal supply system. This value requires verification.
This equates to a unit value of $90.91 per AF or $2,900 per AF on a present value basis
using a 3% discount. These costs are subtracted from the replacement value.
Applying the values above, the resultant replacement cost of JWMD single use water is
$99,400 per AF.
JWMD Wholly Consumable Water
The replacement value approach for JWMD wholly consumable water assumed the
following:
1. Each AF of JWMD wholly consumable water would be replaced by one AF of Windy
Gap water.11 Windy Gap water is sourced from the Colorado River and delivered via
the CBT system. Windy Gap is unreliable as it is a junior right and is first to spill once
delivered into the CBT system. However, Windy Gap water is wholly consumable, and
is highly valued by municipalities because wastewater returns generated from it can
be reused to extinction.
Similar to the wholly consumable JWMD water, Windy Gap is deliverable to the Fort
Collins water system, can be delivered year-round, is unfirm, and is wholly
consumable.
2. Fort Collins provided the yield of JWMD wholly consumable water on an average
basis, meaning the replacement Windy Gap water would be estimated on an average
11 This analysis assumes replacement by unfirmed Windy Gap units, that is, units not participating in the Windy
Gap Firming Project. As provided in footnote 9, this replacement cost approach does not assume physical
replacement with Windy Gap supplies.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 100
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 13
yield basis. Estimates of average yield for Windy Gap vary widely by user and depend
on the extent that Windy Gap owners are able to in-lieu borrow against their CBT. We
use an average value across multiple owners of 55 AF per Windy Gap Unit.
3. Windy Gap values were estimated from comparable sales. However, few Windy Gap
units have transacted in recent years. Therefore, average Windy Gap unit sale prices
were compared against average CBT unit prices by year. The resultant regression is
shown in Figure 6 and estimates that at current CBT prices of $100,000 per AF, Windy
Gap is valued at $63,200 per AF.
Figure 6: Windy Gap and CBT Price Comparison12
4. As for CBT, Windy Gap assessment costs are added to the replacement cost. Windy
Gap assessments for 2022 were $267.45 per AF for delivered water.13 The present
value of these assessment payments equates to $8,500 per AF at a 3% discount rate
over a 100-year term.
5. Saved O&M costs for the JWMD equal $2,900 per AF as calculated above.
Applying the values above, the resultant replacement cost of JWMD wholly consumable
water is $68,800 per AF. Results are summarized below in Table 3. The resultant blended
replacement cost for JWMD water, weighted by average yield from each source, is $77,900
per AF.
12 Prices are CPI adjusted to 2023 dollars.
13 Municipal Subdistrict 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report:
https://www.northernwater.org/getmedia/eb65976b-9066-4da2-adc5-703f7cf3d922/FY-2021-Municipal-
Subdistrict-AFR
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 101
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 14
Table 3: Joe Wright Michigan Ditch System Replacement Cost Analysis
Component JWMD Single Use
Water
JWMD Wholly
Consumable Water
Average Yield, AF 1,650 3,850
Replacement Source CBT Windy Gap
Replacement Source Value, per AF $100,000 $63,200
Present Value of Assessments, per AF $2,300 $8,500
JWMD O&M Savings, per AF ($2,900) ($2,900)
Replacement Cost per AF $99,400 $68,800
Blended Replacement Cost, per AF $77,900
Reuse Plan Yield
The Reuse Plan describes a three-way trade between the City, WSSC, and the Platte River
Power Authority (“PRPA”). The Reuse Plan generates wholly consumable supplies that are
treated by Fort Collins and delivered via wastewater effluent to PRPA’s Energy Station. In
exchange, PRPA provides Fort Collins the first use of Windy Gap water. The Reuse Plan nets
Fort Collins 2,310 AF of annual supply. Historically, the Windy Gap supply underpinning the
Reuse Plan has been unfirm, but with the addition of the Windy Gap Firming Project, City staff
anticipated the supply would become firm.
WestWater could not identify any recent, comparable transactions of water assets similar to
that provided under the Reuse Plan. Consequently, WestWater approximated the value of
the Reuse Plan yield by estimating its replacement value at the margin. The replacement
value approach assumed the following:
1. Each AF of the Reuse Plan would be replaced by one AF of CBT. Similar to CBT, the
yield of the Reuse Plan is single use and deliverable to the Fort Collins water system
year-round.
2. The Reuse Plan yield is assumed firm. Therefore, the replacement CBT would be
added at the firm quota of 0.5 AF per unit. Using the CBT values described above, the
price per firm yield of CBT is $140,000 per AF.
3. The replacement CBT would incur additional assessment costs. As calculated for the
Senior Directs above, the present value of CBT assessments is approximately $3,200,
which is added to the replacement costs.
4. O&M cost savings for discontinuance of the Reuse Plan are assumed negligible.
The replacement approach estimates the value of the Reuse Plan yield is $143,200 per AF.
Chaffee Ditch Yield
The Chaffee Ditch was a privately owned irrigation ditch diverting from the Poudre River in
Fort Collins. Fort Collins purchased the Chaffee Ditch water rights, and the ditch structures
were subsequently abandoned. The City changed the water rights in 1980 to municipal use
and to allow alternative points of diversion. The water rights provide the City an average yield
of 440 AF per year, divertible between April 15 and October 31.
While there have been similar purchases of privately owned irrigation water rights in other
areas of the South Platte Basin, no contemporary records are available. Therefore,
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 102
Valuation of Fort Collins Water Assets
Page 15
WestWater approximated the value of the Chaffee Ditch yield by estimating its replacement
value at the margin, calculated as follows:
1. For this analysis, we assume Chaffee Ditch rights would be replaced shares of PVLC.
Chaffee Ditch rights are single use, moderately senior (priority 48 in the Poudre Basin)
and divertible only during the irrigation season.
2. As determined above, PVLC is valued at $52,700 per AF.
3. PVLC shares incur a $39.62 per AF assessment rate, the present value of which
equates to $1,250 at 3% discount over 100 years. This amount is additive to the
replacement cost.
The replacement approach estimates the value of the Chaffee Ditch yield is $54,000 per AF.
Conclusions
Results of the asset valuation are presented in Table 4 below. The proration of yield is
estimated from the average system yield numbers as shown in Table 1. The proration of yield
is multiplied by the unit prices for each asset to yield the marginal value of each asset. That
marginal value represents the value attributed to each asset comprising the purchase or sale
of one additional AF of the City’s water rights portfolio, which when summed across all assets
provides the total marginal buy-in value. Based on this analysis, the present buy-in value
of the City’s existing water rights portfolio is $100,900 per AF.
Table 4: Valuation Results
Asset Value per AF
Percent of
Total Average
System Yield,
AF
Marginal
Value
CBT Units $100,000 26.2% $26,200
North Poudre Irrigation Company $104,900 15.8% $16,600
Water Supply and Storage Company $60,600 3.5% $2,100
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company $52,700 6.2% $3,300
Arthur Irrigation Company $52,700 2.5% $1,300
Larimer County Canal No.2 $52,700 4.7% $2,500
New Mercer Ditch Company $51,100 2.3% $1,200
Poudre River Direct Flow $143,200 22.4% $32,100
Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch System $77,900 10.9% $8,497
Chaffee Ditch $54,000 0.9% $500
Reuse Plan (PRPA) $143,200 4.6% $6,600
Total $100,900
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 103