HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2024 - Water Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
September 19, 2024 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Online via Teams or in person at 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado River Community Room
09/19/2024 Agenda Page 1
The Water Commission advises City Council regarding water, wastewater, and stormwater
policy issues such as water rights, planning, acquisition and management, conservation and
public education, floodplain regulations, storm drainage, and development criteria. Read more
at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/boards/water.
This hybrid Water Commission meeting is available online via Teams or in person in the
Colorado River Community Room of 222 LaPorte Ave. You may join the meeting beginning at
5 p.m. Participants should join at least 15 minutes prior to 5:30 p.m. start time.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the
meeting through Teams at https://teams.microsoft.com and entering:
Meeting ID: 213 162 835 324
Passcode: 23EW6u
(Using earphones with microphone will improve the audio). Keep yourself on muted status.
For public comments, the Chairperson will ask participants if anyone would like to come off
mute if you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Teams session to ensure all
participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERSON:
To participate in person, individuals should come to the Colorado River Community Room of
222 LaPorte Ave. There may be needs to limit the number of individuals in the meeting room,
and thus staging for individuals to speak may need to occur in the lobby or outside (weather
permitting).
Individuals who wish to speak will line up along the northern wall. The chairperson will call
upon each participant to speak.
(Continued on next page)
WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
September 19, 2024, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Online via Teams or in person at 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado River Community Room
09/19/2024 Agenda Page 2
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION (3 minutes per individual)
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 15
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Staff Reports
i. Financial Monthly Report (meeting packet only/no presentation)
b. Regular Items
i. 2025 Utility Rates and Fees
(Discussion and Action: 30 minutes)
Randy Reuscher, Lead Analyst, Utility Rate
Staff will present on the 2025 utility rates and fees and ask the Commission
to move to recommend the changes to City Council.
Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to
provide to the Water Commission for its consideration must be emailed to jsong@fcgov.com
at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the
Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments
to the above email address at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate
that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the
Water Commission.
WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
September 19, 2024, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Online via Teams or in person at 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado River Community Room
09/19/2024 Agenda Page 3
ii. City Regulated 100-Yr Flood Risk Mapping for the West Vine Basin
(Discussion and Action: 20 minutes)
Theodore Bender, PE, CFM Stormwater Engineering Manager
Kenneth Sampley, PE Director, Stormwater Water Wastewater Engineering
Michael Pierce, PE Civil Engineer III
Staff would like to formally request the updated flood risk mapping for the
West Vine basin be adopted to become the effective mapping for the City
floodplain management program. Staff goal is to have the mapping adopted
by the end of the 2024 calendar year. Updating the West Vine basin flood risk
mapping was funded and managed by the City Stormwater Master Planning
program. The Selected Plan of Improvements project was placed on pause
during COVID and due to staff turnover. The project is active again and
moving towards completion.
8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
(Committees, Event attendance, etc.)
9. OTHER BUSINESS
(Commissioner concerns, Announcements)
a. Draft Letter for Water Commission Support of One Water Efforts
10. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 15, 2024, 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Hybrid in person at 222 Laporte Ave and online via Zoom
08/15/2024 – DRAFT Unapproved MINUTES Page 1
The Water Commission advises City Council regarding water, wastewater, and stormwater
policy issues such as water rights, planning, acquisition and management, conservation and
public education, floodplain regulations, storm drainage, and development criteria. Read
more at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/boards/water.
1. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
• Commissioners Present In Person: Tyler Eldridge (Vice Chairperson), Paul Herman,
John Primsky, Greg Steed
• Commissioners Present via Zoom: Nick Martin
• Commissioners Absent - Excused: Jordan Radin (Chairperson), James Bishop, Rick
Kahn, Nicole Ng
• Staff Members Present In Person: Jeremy Woolf, John Song, Leslie Hill, Richard Thorp,
Katie Collins, Heather Jarvis, Jill Oropeza
• Staff Members Present via Zoom: Mariel Miller, Kathryne Marko, Kerri Ishmael
• Members of the Public: James _____
3. AGENDA REVIEW
• Vice Chairperson Tyler Eldridge briefly summarized items on the agenda
4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
• None
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chairperson Eldridge asked for comments and revisions on the draft minutes.
Commissioner Steed moved to approve the July 18 minutes.
Commissioner Herman seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 5-0
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
08/15/202 4 – DRAFT Unapproved MINUTES Page 2
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Staff Reports
i. Financial Monthly Report
(meeting packet only)
Discussion Highlights
A Commissioner commented that this was the largest margin that they have
seen fir operating costs for water and wondered if it was due to higher use
and/or higher expenses. Staff Liaison Jeremy Woolf and Water Conservation
Manager Mariel Miller added that 2023 was about 13% less water use than
the previous 5-year average and discrepancies have been mostly due to
weather, so this year is more of a return to normal.
ii. Cybersecurity UT Water Memo to Council
(meeting packet only; staff available for questions)
Discussion Highlights
Commissioners commented on or inquired about various related topics
including VPNs, system updates, and networks. Jeremy Woolf elaborated
that Water Utilities’ operational environment functions via the Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which operates onsite and
among a small network through the privileged access management (PAM)
system, which is all isolated from the wider enterprise network of the rest of
the City. In all, there are three levels of security for Utilities’ system beyond
the initial firewall. Commissioners and staff spoke about the July 10th
cyberattack on the enterprise system, which again is separate from the
operational network SCADA which was thus protected from the attack.
b. Regular Items
i. Agreements Regarding the Michigan Ditch Forest Health and Pre-Fire
Mitigation Project
Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Sciences
The Michigan Ditch is critical water supply infrastructure owned by the City
and located near Cameron Pass within Colorado State Forest State Park.
Watershed Program staff seek a recommendation from the Water
Commission that City Council approve the Watershed Program entering into
the attached Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Forest Health and Pre-
Fire Mitigation Services through the Colorado State Forest Service and the
Colorado State Forest Service Financial Assistance Program for Michigan
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
08/15/202 4 – DRAFT Unapproved MINUTES Page 3
Ditch Pre-Fire Mitigation.
Discussion Highlights
Commissioners commented on or inquired about various related topics
including the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) budget makeup, the
Watershed Program fund, program intent, and the proposed agreements. A
Commissioner inquired if the strategy is to simply thin the forest to prevent
fires. Mr. Thorp responded that though it’s a part of the strategy, there would
need to be a good mitigation plan beyond just thinning, as the area around
Michigan Ditch is a sensitive ecozone and there could be risks of drying out
the land even further and making it more susceptible to fires. A
Commissioner inquired about the two agreements, to which Mr. Thorp
responded that the two are co-dependent, namely that one agreement would
fund the work of the other, and thus the motion requires the acceptance and
recommendation of both agreements for the IGA to move forward as
intended.
Commissioner Primsky moved that the Water Commission recommend
City Council formally approve of Utilities’ Watershed Program entering into
the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Forest Health and Pre-Fire
Mitigation Services through the Colorado State Forest Service and the
Colorado State Forest Service Financial Assistance Program for Michigan
Ditch Pre-Fire Mitigation.
Commissioner Eldridge seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 5-0
ii. Code Amendments – Soil and Xeriscape
Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist
Environmental Regulatory Affairs and Water Conservation seek a
recommendation from the Water Commission that City Council approve the
attached amendments to Land Use Code and Municipal Code. Proposed
amendments support water-wise, resilient landscape practices and address
two 2021-2023 Council Priorities: #14 Effective soil amendment policies and
compliance (water usage), #19 Xeriscape – Increase rebates and education,
less green lawns with new development. Kathryne Marko, Environment
Regulatory Affairs Manager, co-leads this project.
Discussion Highlights
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
08/15 /202 4 – DRAFT Unapproved MINUTES Page 4
Commissioners commented on or inquired about various related topics
including the Senate bill on turf limits, Council priorities, and daytime watering
restrictions. A Commissioner inquired whether the comprehensive field
inspection would be done before any construction and whether any new fees
would be incurred. Katie Collins confirmed that the inspection would occur
before any builds or plants are put in the ground. Environmental Regulatory
Affairs (ERA) Manager Kathryne Marko added that there would be no specific
fee for the inspection, but rather that it would be built into the building permit.
A Commissioner inquired about community outreach, to which Ms. Collins
responded that there had been a high level of engagement and feedback,
seeing about a thousand responses from the community, as well as
engagement with real estate and contracting professionals. One of the
pushbacks regarded the lack of language regarding grass in the streetscape
or parkway, but Ms. Collins stated that there were yet uncertainties of any
alternatives and so they were not able to elaborate on the topic.
Commissioner Steed moved 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 12-134 in substantially the
same content and form as proposed by staff and considered by the
Commission on August 15, 2024.
Commissioner Herman seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 5-0
7. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
a. Rocky Mountain Water Conference in two weeks
8. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Oak Street Project Tour Opportunity
b. Water Commission Support for One Water Operator Efforts
c. Switch from Zoom to Teams starting next month
d. New One Water Director Nicole Poncelet-Johnson starting September 30
e. Risk and Resiliency Program Summary
f. Strategic Asset Management Plan
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
08/15/202 4 – DRAFT Unapproved MINUTES Page 5
9. ADJOURNMENT
7:02 p.m.
These minutes will be approved by the Water Commission on September 19, 2024.
Water Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 66.7%
August Year to Date
Actual
Over/
(Under)Budget Actual
Over/
(Under) Inc/(Dec)
% Bud
Recvd % Act Recvd
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 2023
Residential Water Sales $ 2,273 * $ (18) $ 11,908 $ 12,362 $ 454 (A)$ 1,750 68%75%
Com/Indl Water Sales 1,472 * 106 6,156 6,636 480 (B)833 67%71%
Excess Water Use Surcharge 140 * 104 53 192 139 91 31%20%
District Water Sales 371 * 91 1,252 1,660 408 (C)294 81%67%
Other Water Sales 33 * (56)675 655 (20)295 79%121%
PILOTs 247 15 1,145 1,239 94 162 68%72%
Operating Revenue 4,536 242 21,189 22,745 1,556 3,426 68%72%
Interest Revenue 145 53 737 1,567 830 (D)374 142%79%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 10 (124) 1,077 2,239 1,162 (E)1,596 139%171%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 6 6 6 4%
Other Misc.14 (4)155 303 148 (F)154 101%91%
Total Lapsing Revenue**4,705 166 23,157 26,859 3,702 5,555 74%76%
Non-lapsing Revenue 0 51 51
TOTAL**$ 4,705 $ 26,910 $ 5,606
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
*
**
Overly conservative budget estimate for FCLWD (corrected in 2025-26 budget) as well as additional revenue due to temporarily providing water during the Soldier Canyon plant shut down.
Residential Water Sales are 3.8% over budget and 16.5% more than YTD 2023.
Note: Water rate increase of 4.0% for 2024, as budgeted.
Commercial/Industrial Water sales are 7.8% over budget and 14.4% more than YTD 2023.
August billed revenue is for July and early August.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
Repair Charges $178 (received settlement for AB Transmission Main that was struck).
Per Treasury: higher than budgeted income due to being able to take advantage of the higher bond yields the market has been producing.
Contribution in Aid of Construction $474 (FCLWD and NWCWD payment for 2014 Pleasant Valley Pipeline Munroe Turnout Screen and Sedimentation Basin), Plant Investment Fees $344
(Accounting recognized $496 from unearned revenue related to 2019 FCLWD loan prepayment in January - was previously recognized in December and thus budgeted in December), and
Water Rights $335 (large senior living complex in February).
2
Wastewater Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 66.7%
August Year to Date
Actual
Over/
(Under)Budget Actual
Over/
(Under) Inc/(Dec)
% Bud
Recvd % Act Recvd
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 2023
Residential WW Sales $ 1,407 * $ 3 $ 11,254 $ 11,368 $ 114 (A)$ 385 67%69%
Com/Indl WW Sales 620 * 26 3,737 4,007 270 (B)197 69%68%
District WW Sales 38 * 3 280 299 19 14 71%70%
Other WW Sales 46 * 24 129 276 147 (C)40 131%70%
PILOTs 124 1 921 940 19 35 68%68%
Operating Revenue 2,235 57 16,321 16,889 568 671 68%69%
Interest Revenue 90 41 388 935 547 (D)262 161%81%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 46 (31)623 530 (93)(E)(85) 57%81%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Misc.3 3 72 108 36 19 90%71%
Total Lapsing Revenue**2,374 70 17,404 18,461 1,057 867 70%69%
Non-lapsing Revenue 0 0 0
TOTAL**$ 2,374 $ 18,461 $ 867
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)Septage Treatment Charge $145.
(D)
(E)Plant Investment Fees ($83).
*
**
Residential sales were 1.0% over budget and 3.5% more than YTD 2023.
Commercial/Industrial sales were 7.2% over budget and 5.2% more than YTD 2023.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
Per Treasury we should have higher than budgeted income due to being able to take advantage of the higher bond yields the market has been producing.
August billed revenue is for July and early August.
Note: Wastewater rate increase of 4.0% for 2024, as budgeted.
3
Stormwater Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 66.7%
August Year to Date
Actual
Over/
(Under)Budget Actual
Over/
(Under) Inc/(Dec)
% Bud
Recvd % Act Recvd
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 2023
Single Family Residential SW Services $ 730 * $ 20 $ 5,689 $ 5,872 $ 183 (A)$ 215 69%68%
Non-single Family SW Services 897 * 37 6,940 7,161 221 (B)270 69%68%
Operating Revenue 1,627 57 12,629 13,033 404 485 69%68%
Interest Revenue 148 117 250 1,536 1,286 (C)1,045 410%125%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 57 (18)600 644 44 (D)(55) 72%64%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Misc.1 (1)11 54 43 (E)29 360%58%
Total Lapsing Revenue**1,834 155 13,490 15,266 1,777 1,505 75%71%
Non-lapsing Revenue 0 0 0
TOTAL**$ 1,834 $ 15,266 $ 1,505
Variance Analysis:
Note: Stormwater rate increase of 3.0% for 2024, as budgeted.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
*
**
Per Treasury - we should have higher than budgeted income due to higher bond yields.
Non-Single Family fees are 3.2% greater than 2023.
Single Family Residential fees are 3.2% greater than 2023.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
August billed revenue is for July and early August.
Stormwater Development Fees are over budget $44.
Auction Sales revenue $10 and Canal Maintenance revenue $26
4
Water Fund 2024 Department Expense
In thousands `Percent of Year 66.7%
August Year to Date
Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD Bdgt Actual
(Over)/
Under (Inc)/Dec
Actual +
PO's
Spent &
Committed
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 by PO's
Water Treatment $ 530 $ 74 $ 4,312 $ 4,175 $ 137 $ (185) $ 4,412 67%
Water Resources 71 11 2,159 1,973 187 72 $ 2,039 57%
Water Quality Lab 54 34 807 792 15 (110) $ 927 72%
Subtotal WR&T $ 654 $ 119 $ 7,278 $ 6,940 $ 339 $ (223) $ 7,378 65%
Transmission & Distribution 341 (10) 2,330 2,441 (111)(A)(125) $ 2,481 65%
Water Meters O&M 86 29 893 614 280 (B)(28) $ 974 72%
Engineering 32 61 546 261 285 (C)141 $ 311 33%
Subtotal WEFS 459 80 3,770 3,316 454 (13) $ 3,766 61%
Water Conservation 105 17 829 640 189 (D)85 $ 722 54%
PILOTs 252 (19)1,145 1,239 (94)(162) $ 1,239 68%
Admin Services - CS&A 439 0 3,513 3,513 0 (140) $ 3,513 67%
Other Payments & Transfers 75 82 1,398 1,416 (18)(E)47 $ 1,488 58%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 1,985 $ 279 $ 17,933 $ 17,064 0 $ 869 $ (406) $ 18,107 64%
Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0
Minor Capital 112 94 889 635 253 (F)(71) $ 1,238 66%
Total Lapsing $ 2,097 $ 373 $ 18,822 $ 17,700 $ 1,122 $ (477) $ 19,345 64%
Non-lapsing Expenses 498 7,556 (3,197)
TOTAL $ 2,595 $ 25,256 $ (3,675)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
Street & Bridge Maint. ($116) and Traffic Control ($15) (trending slightely lower than average annual number of water main breaks - overages due to increased costs for asphalt patching (up 30%) and
concrete repairs from Streets (Streets labor up 8-10%, equipment costs up, etc.); expecting to be over budget by 25-30% by YE, planning to offset in Solid Waste, Other Prof. & Tech), Clothing Supplies
($18) (clothing allowance doubled this year due to inflation and comparing clothing spend in other water operations, will be over budget ~$10 by YE), and Sand & Gravel ($16) (for main break repairs and
other excavations, will be over by YE), offset by Solid Waste Services $24 (hauling soil to county sites instead of landfill, under ~$30 by YE), Tools & Related Supplies $19 (have some control over spend
here, so trying to underspend, expecting to be ~$10 under by YE), Motor Fuel, Oil, and Grease $17 (conservatively budgeted per Ops Services, historically underspent, ~$40 by YE), Other Professional &
Technical $14 (reactionary item with no immediate needs, under by ~$20 by YE), and Water Pipes & Accessories $10 (not expecting any large purchases since lead service line inventory is complete,
~$30 under by YE).
Consulting $120 ($67 dedicated to BFO offer 4.5 Large Valve Maintenance, which is on hold until Purchasing Policies around emergency repairs are figured out; not expecting to spend much by YE),
Personnel $115 (vacancy and time being charged elsewhere incorrectly), Software Maint. & Support $15 (probably only spending half of this budget by YE), and Other Professional & Technical $12.
$273 related to BFO offer 4.40 for Meter Crawlspace Conversions due to contractor for meter box installations awarded in early May and delays in getting mailing addresses, flat by year-end if we get
enough customers to give us permission to dig; 71 meter boxes installed so far and contractor attempting to hire a second crew, likely under by YE, offset by Personnel ($14) (Salaries - Hourly $15: hired
a part-time Meter Reader due to AMI module shortage, and Assumed Vacancy Factor $23: no vacancies, over budget $20-25 by YE).
Legal Services ($16) (related to Open International lawsuit, over budget by YE).
Consulting $93 (CIS project paying for MyWater/Watersmart, expecting to be $85 underspent by YE), High Efficiency Rebate $41, Urinal & Toilet Rebates $25 (expecting a $23 project; spending
depends on projects and is highly variable; under $50 by YE), Personnel $18 (Primarily in hourly labor offset by Regular labor and $20 AVF, expecting to be $60 under in Hourlies by YE), and
Conservation Incentives $10 (Natural Areas paying for Garden in a Box intend to use this for XIP minor amendments; flat by YE).
Water Treatment: Water Filter Material $150 (media replacements are being performed as part of capital projects this year, under budget ~$100-130 by YE and 25-26 BFO offer reduced), Consulting
$122 (Asset Risk & Resiliency Assessment kicking off in October, may spend down depending on timing), Other Capital Outlay $24 and Engineering Services $10 (no further expenditures planned, under
by YE), and Computer Hardware $10 (likely ~$7 under by YE), offset by Building Maintenance Services ($50) (for annual inspections and repairs to existing roofs, over ~$20 by YE), and Vehicles &
Equipment ($17) (equipment available earlier than expected, under $50+ by YE). Transmission & Distribution: Mechanical & Heavy Equipment $97 (clean energy grant match that lapsed and was
appropriated from reserves) and Motor Vehicles ($49) (looking into).
5
Wastewater Fund 2024 Department Expense
In thousands Percent of Year 66.7%
Excludes depreciation and transfers
Year to Date
Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD Bdgt Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD (Inc)/Dec
Actual +
PO's
% Bud Spent &
Committed
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 by PO's
Water Reclamation & Biosolids $ 579 $ (54) $ 4,535 $ 4,188 $ 347 (A)$ (159) $ 4,572 64%
Pollution Control Lab 143 (40)890 780 111 (4)860 62%
Subtotal WR&T 722 (94)5,425 4,968 458 (163)5,432 64%
Trunk & Collection 142 12 1,308 1,179 129 (62)1,179 57%
Engineering 31 22 425 267 158 (B)43 334 51%
Subtotal WEFS 174 34 1,733 1,446 287 (19)1,513 56%
PILOTs 122 1 920 940 (20)(35)940 68%
Admin Services - CS&A 257 (0)2,057 2,057 (0)(80)2,057 67%
Other Payments & Transfers 69 60 1,167 1,175 (8)4 1,211 54%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 1,344 $ 0 $ 11,302 $ 10,585 $ 717 $ (292) $ 11,153 62%
Debt Service 0 0 189 189 0 $ 36 189 8%
Minor Capital 51 (50)848 202 646 (C)$ 664 625 65%
Total Lapsing $ 1,395 $ (50)$ 12,338 $ 10,976 $ 1,363 $ 409 $ 11,967 37%
Non-lapsing Expenses 505 4,011 (1,332)
TOTAL $ 1,900 $ 14,987 $ (924)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
Personnel $131 (Vacancies), Other Prof & Tech Services $99 (Change in requirements are delaying open PO), Consulting Services $75 (POs are open for consulting will reduce underspend),
Machinery & Equipment Parts $38, Legal Services $16 (Ongoing appeal for water rights case. Have not seen invoices yet.), Conference and Travel $12, Land Maintenance Services $16, Plumbing &
Irrigation Supplies $11, Software Maint & Support Serv $11, Other Land & Bldg Supplies $11, Communication Supplies $10. Offset by Motor Fuel, Oil & Grease ($12), Laboratory Supplies ($17)
(Needed supplies ordered earlier than originally anticipated), Electrical Parts ($17) (Supplies needed earlier than anticipated coupled with increasing equipment costs), Chemical Supplies $(24) (Other
Chemical Supplies $90, Sodium Hypochlorite ($4), Polymer $(27), Magnesium Chloride ($28), Magnesium Hydroxide ($55)), Electricity ($49) (Warmer weather than anticipated, construction projects
underway and rate increases).
Consulting Services $61 ($68 in Open POs. Work not completed later than expected), Other Prof & Tech Services $15, Software Maint & Support Serv $10.
Trunk & Collection: Mechanical & Heavy Equipment $524 (Working with fleet for purchase vehicles and equipment. Not expecting any commitments until June at the earliest), Water Reclamation &
Biosolids: Motor Vehicles and Accessories $150 (Assessing needs currently), Other Equipment $20, Pollution Control Lab: $10 Other Equipment (Used for unexpected repairs. Needs have not
exceeded the budget)
6
Stormwater Fund 2024 Department Expense
In thousands Percent of Year 66.7%
Excludes depreciation and transfers
Year to Date
Actual
(Over)/
Under Budget Actual (Over)/ Under (Inc)/Dec Actual + PO's
% Bud Spent &
Committed
2024 2024 Bud 2024 2024 2024 Bud 2023 2024 by PO's
Drainage and Detention $ 225 $ 28 $ 1,752 $ 1,583 $ 169 (A)$ (175)$ 1,692 63%
Engineering 141 6 1,313 1,089 224 (B)(84)1,173 60%
Stormwater Quality Programs 122 (83) 363 357 6 (99)405 57%
Admin Services - CS&A 307 0 2,453 2,453 0 (87)2,453 67%
Other Payments & Transfers 44 38 701 709 (8)(C)20 745 41%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 839 $ (10) $ 6,582 $ 6,191 $ 391 $ (425)$ 6,468 60%
Debt Service 0 0 1,085 1,085 (0) (1,085)1,085 35%
Minor Capital 0 0 924 273 650 (D)(43)1,097 67%
Total Lapsing $ 839 $ (10) $ 8,591 $ 7,550 $ 1,041 $ (1,553)$ 8,650 55%
Non-lapsing Expenses 1,411 3,656 (571)
TOTAL $ 2,249 $ 11,205 $ (2,123)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Personnel $96 (a vacancy is being releveled to be filled later in 2024 and seasonal employees' work is finishing up) and Street & Bridge Maintenance $80 (expect underspend), offset by
Sewer Pipe & Accessories (($25) needed replacement of gear actuator for flood control gate and other reactionary items) and Maintenance Contracts (($38) weather variations are driving
spending increase from 2023, expect to be over ($50) at YE).
Personnel $87 (vacancies earlier in the year) and Consulting $130 (used as needed), offset by Easements (($43) services provided by City Real Estate Services).
Heavy Equipment - upfitting in progress, expect delivery Q4 2024.
Legal Services ($8).
7
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 7
September 19, 2024
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Water Commission
STAFF
Randy Reuscher, Lead Rate Analyst
Phil Ladd, Utilities Manager, FP&A
SUBJECT
Items Relating to 2025 Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider proposed 2025 Utility rate and fee updates being brought forward
for Council consideration on November 4 (Rates) and November 19 (Fees), to become effective on
January 1, 2025, including the following items:
• Rates - monthly utility rates to increase 6.5% for Electric customers, 7% for Water customers, 6%
for Wastewater customers, and 6% for Stormwater customers.
• Fees - adjustments to utility development fees including 9.3% for Electric Capacity Fees (ECFs)
and 1.5% for Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). There are no proposed changes for
Water PIFs or Wastewater PIFs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting support from the Water Commission regarding water, wastewater, and stormwater
rate and fee updates for 2025 and recommends adopting the changes as proposed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The revenue needed to support the ongoing operation and maintenance costs of providing each of the
four essential services to customers are collected through monthly utility rates. As costs change over
time it is necessary to adjust rates to reflect those changes. Long-term financial planning is important to
ensure revenues are adequate and reserves are available to maintain and replace infrastructure in a
timely fashion to continue to provide high quality and reliable services to our customers. Frequent review
and updating of the cost-of-service allocation models every two years regarding monthly utility rates
maintains equity across rate classes and helps to reduce the impacts on customers of higher utility rates
by providing gradual, modest rate adjustments over time rather than less frequent and larger rate
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 7
adjustments. These actions help ensure the delivery of current and future utility services occurs in a
fiscally responsible manner, balancing both costs and levels of service with affordability and prudent
planning and investments.
A summary of the proposed rate increases for the four utility services are shown in the table below.
These increases are included in the 2025 City Manager’s Recommended Budget.
Staff is proposing a 7% retail rate increase for the water fund in 2025. There are numerous factors at play
here, including decreased water revenue in 2023 due to above average rainfall that significantly lowered
water consumption for the year. Additionally, due to the higher costs of materials and impacts to the cost
of borrowing, the amount of interest paid on any revenue bonds needed in the coming decade for
infrastructure investments will increase.
The graph below shows the evolution of the Water CIP over the last 3 budget cycles compared to the
2023 CIP. The current 10 Year CIP consists of $438M of identified capital investments which consists of
$109M for distribution renewal, $32M for water treatment renewal, $28M for a new water quality lab and
equipment, and an additional $269M for water resource infrastructure.
In 2023, capital projects accounted for 30% of total water fund expenses. This percentage is expected to
increase in the coming years and is a significant driver for future rate increases in the water fund.
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 7
The long-term financial model has been updated for the water fund. The current rate forecast for the
water fund is shown below. Given rate pressures related to capital projects and other increasing
operational and maintenance costs, it may be necessary to implement rate increases in the 7-10% range
in future years, particularly if inflation and the cost of borrowing for debt service remains high, as seen in
the last few years.
Staff is proposing a 6% retail rate increase for the wastewater fund in 2025. There has been a trend in
recent years of declining operating revenues for this utility. As this utility is not immune to the impacts of
inflation on its operating costs, it is necessary to increase operating revenues through rate adjustments to
offset these higher costs of providing this service to our community. Future rate increases will likely range
between 6 – 8% each year based on current forecasts.
The graph below shows the evolution of the Wastewater CIP over the last 3 budget cycles compared to
the 2023 CIP reflecting the impacts of some of the macro-economic challenges outlined above as well as
updated planning and analysis. The growth of the number of projects in the CIP will require further
consideration around how to fully resource these projects which could result in a more even distribution
of capital required than what is shown in the chart below.
The current 10 Year CIP consists of $322M of identified capital investments which consists of $116M for
renewal of the collection system, $29M for a new pollution control lab and equipment, and $177M for
water reclamation infrastructure.
Actual Budget Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Fund 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Water Fund 4%7%9%7-10%7-10%7-10%7-10%7-10%7-10%7-10%
Utility Rate Forecast
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 7
The current rate forecast for the wastewater fund is shown here:
Staff is proposing a 6% retail rate increase for the stormwater fund in 2025. Rate adjustments of
upwards of 8% may be necessary each year over the course of the next decade to fund just half of the
proposed CIP.
The development of prioritized CIPs is necessary to ensure efficient use of capital to optimize the levels
of service being provided to our community. The graph below shows the evolution of the Stormwater CIP
over the last 3 budget cycles compared to the 2023 CIP, reflecting the impacts of some of the macro-
economic challenges outlined above as well as updated planning and analysis. The current 10 Year CIP
consists of $239M of identified capital investments which consists of $35M for stream rehabilitation
investments and $204M in flood control structures.
There was a recent need to issue $40M in revenue bonds in 2023 for the Oak Street stormwater
improvement project that increased debt service payments for this fund.
The current rate forecast for stormwater services is shown here:
The table below shows the impacts of the proposed rate change to the average residential monthly bill.
Under the proposed rate changes, a residential customer’s total utility bill, for a customer receiving all
four municipal utility services, would increase by 6.5%, or $13.07 per month.
Actual Budget Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Fund 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Wastewater Fund 4%6%8%6-8%6-8%6-8%6-8%6-8%6-8%6-8%
Utility Rate Forecast
Actual Budget Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Fund 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Wastewater Fund 3%6%6%5-7%3-5%4-6%4-6%6-8%6-8%6-8%
Utility Rate Forecast
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 7
The table below compares typical residential electric, water, wastewater, and stormwater monthly utility
bills across neighboring utilities along the Front Range, based on proposed 2025 rate adjustments and
charges. In total, Fort Collins Utilities comes in the lowest at $214.57 for all four services. With proposed
increases for 2025, Fort Collins will remain the lowest overall, as there are known increases proposed
amongst the other bordering utilities for 2025, with some of them being substantially higher than the
percentage increases proposed for customers within our community.
Utility 2024 2025 $ Change % Change
Electric 88.42$ 94.17$ 5.75$ 6.5%
Water 53.04$ 56.75$ 3.71$ 7.0%
Wastewater 36.97$ 39.19$ 2.22$ 6.0%
Stormwater 23.09$ 24.48$ 1.39$ 6.0%
Total Average Bill 201.52$ 214.59$ 13.07$ 6.5%
Comparative Residential Monthly Bill
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 7
Development fees are the mechanism for Utilities to recover the impact of adding new demand to the
services Utilities provides, including electric, water, wastewater, and stormwater. Plant Investment Fees
(PIFs) are one-time charges for new development or re-development. These fees recover costs for
excess capacity of infrastructure already in place to serve new customers based on the “buy-in”
approach, where customers pay according to new demands they will put on the system and considers
incremental costs of future infrastructure to serve them. Utilities has been experiencing significant cost
increases for various items, particularly on the electric side with purchases such as electric transformers,
which have increased substantially due to supply chain issues and higher material costs.
Staff updates development fee models every two years. Each model was last updated in 2023 to capture
current inputs, including current escalation factors in each of the various drivers including costs,
consumption, and future system needs. In alternating years, when models are not updated, an
inflationary adjustment is applied to utility development fees. Staff uses the Engineering News Record
(ENR) construction cost index to apply adjustments.
The 2023 model updates were not fully implemented in January 2024. Rather, in March 2024, Council
supported increasing development fees, including the Electric Capacity Fees, Water PIFs, Wastewater
PIFs, and Stormwater PIFs, by 7.4% as an inflationary adjustment. For 2025, staff is incorporating a
1.9% inflationary adjustment, in addition to the 2023 study update adjustments.
There is no proposed change to Water PIFs or Wastewater PIFs for 2025, as the increase put into effect
in March was similar to the combined 2023 model update percentage and the proposed 2025 inflationary
percentage. Stormwater PIFs will need a minor increase of 1.5% to balance the 2023 model update and
the 2025 inflationary percentage with the increase that was applied back in March.
The table below shows the proposed increase for 2025 for each of the development fees by fund.
Utility Fee Unit of Measure 2025 Proposed Increase
Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) $ / kW 9.3%
Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 0%
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / GPD 0%
Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) $ / acre of development 1.5%
There are many variables in calculating the average impact to a development, particularly between
residential and commercial. Shown in the table below is an example of a single-family residential house
receiving all four services from Fort Collins Utilities. The total utility development fee charge is expected
to increase by approximately $261 in 2025, from $11,911 to $12,172. This equates to an overall blended
increase of 2.2% for these one-time fees.
Water Commission Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 7
2024 Fee 2025 Fee $ Change % Change
200-amp Electric Service 2,625$ 2,869$ 244$ 9.3%
3/4" inch Water PIF (6,000 sq ft lot)3,817$ 3,817$ -$ 0.0%
4" Wastewater PIF 4,339$ 4,339$ -$ 0.0%
Stormwater PIF (6,000 sq ft lot, 0.7 runoff coeff)1,130$ 1,147$ 17$ 1.5%
Total 11,911$ 12,172$ 261$ 2.2%
Residential Development Fee Example
City Stormwater
Engineering Group
West Vine Basin
Update Floodplain
Map Adoption
September 2024
West Vine Basin
West Vine Basin Description:
•Extends east from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Cache La Poudre River.
•Extends south from West Vine Drive to Mulberry
Street and Laporte Avenue.
•Total basin area is approximately 2,252 acres.
•20% within the City limits with the remainder in
Larimer County.
2
Headline Copy Goes Here
West Vine Basin – Previous Studies
• 2002 West Vine Master Plan - Detailed study of the
complex system of ponds, pipes, and channels to
reduce flooding in the basin.
• 2006 Northwest Sub-area Plan - Joint effort
between the City and County to refine drainage
projects in the NW part of the basin.
• 2009 Canal Systems Capacity Analysis - Hydraulic
analysis of the irrigation ditches in the basin.
• 2012 Water Quality Master Plan - Identified
significant water quality improvement areas.
• 2017 Hydrology Update (and associated 2020
Floodplain Study) – Converted existing hydrologic
models to EPA-SWMM modeling platform.
• 2019 Fort Collins City Plan – Identified additional
City priorities within the basin.
Image from 2006 Northwest Sub-area Plan
4
West Vine Basin – 2020 Floodplain Update
• 2017 watershed hydrology was updated to EPA-
SWMM.
• 2019 and 2020 revised floodplain and floodway
zones developed based updated hydrologic
modeling.
• Updated to NAVD 1988 vertical datum.
• Model updated to include new improvements made
along the drainageways (Ex: recently constructed
portion of outfall channel).
• Floodplain mapping followed alignments of six (6)
main flow paths, with additional split flows.
• Used two-dimensional (2D) models to inform the
regulatory one-dimensional (1D) models.
Summary of Updated 100-yr Discharges in West Vine Basin
5
Headline Copy Goes Here
Updated West Vine
Floodplain Maps
Headline Copy Goes Here
Headline Copy Goes Here
Headline Copy Goes Here
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
1. North of the Colorado and Southern Railroad
Embankment, the current study identifies a new
flow path, following the West Vine Outfall flow
path alignment, north to the Cache La Poudre
River. This channel did not exist in the past
study; discharge followed the historic Eastern
Flow Path alignment.
10
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
2. The flood hazard area upstream of Vine Drive
and the Vine Overflow generally increased over
the effective boundary. This is likely due to the
use of new project mapping in this area and
additional analysis for the split flows along Vine
Drive.
11
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
3. Detailed flood hazards replaced the past
shallow flooding boundary at the intersection of
the Central Flow Path with Lyons Street. The
current study provided more cross-sections in this
area to model the roadway overtopping and
junction with the Southeast Flow Path.
Lyons Street
12
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
4. Two distinct floodplain and floodway
boundaries have been identified for the Southern
and Southeastern flow paths downstream of the
LCC No.2. The flood hazards for the
Southeastern Flow Path also increased in size in
this area due to increased discharge from the 2016
Hydrologic Study. Identification of these flow
paths also resulted in the identification of split
flows along Frey and Bryan Avenues.
13
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
5. The limits of the Northern Flow Path changed dramatically as it follows the topography surrounding the current
subdivision, west of the New Mercer Ditch (NMD). The effective flood hazards have also been refined west of Hill Crest
Drive, reflecting the current hydrologic boundaries and division of discharge between flow paths.
14
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
6. Flood hazards along the Central Flow Path remain
similar to the past effective delineation, upstream of the
NMD. Flood hazards in and around the Green Acres
Subdivision have been refined based on the analysis
described above and evaluation of the overflow channel.
The flood hazards vary significantly from the effective
along the Cherry/Sunrise Reach due to topographic
differences.
15
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
7. Along the Southern Reach, the updated flood hazards
are also similar to those of the past mapping upstream of
the Poudre High School campus. Through the campus
and downstream to the LCC No.2, flood hazards
changed dramatically with the addition of detail added
to model split flows and canal spills.
16
West Vine Basin – Key Changes
8. Flood hazards for the Northern and
Central flow paths were removed east of the
LCC No.2 based on the hydrology finding
from the 2016 Hydrology Study.
17
West Vine Basin – Staff Recommendation
18
To support the City's Master Planning and
Floodplain Management programs, the City of
Fort Collins Stormwater Engineering Staff
requests that the Water Commission
recommend the Utility Executive Director
adopt the new West Vine floodplain mapping.
West Vine Basin – Proposed Motion
19
I move that, to support the City's Master Planning
and Floodplain Management programs, the
Water Commission recommends to the Utility
Executive Director the adoption of the new West
Vine floodplain mapping.
West Vine Basin – Map Adoption
20
Back-up Slides to support Selected Plan of Improvement Questions.
West Vine Basin – Selected Plan Recommendations
asdf
21
West Vine Basin – Selected Plan Recommendations
asdf
22
West Vine Basin – Selected Plan Recommendations
asdf
23
Utilities
electric • stormwater • wastewater • water
700 Wood St.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax • 970.224.6003 TDD
utilities@fcgov.com • fcgov.com/utilities
DATE: Sept 11, 2024
TO: City of Fort Collins Water Commission
FROM: Theodore Bender, Manager, Stormwater Engineering
Michael Pierce, Civil Engineer III, Stormwater Engineering
RE: West Vine Basin Updated Floodplain Map Adoption
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide the City of Fort Collins Water Commission additional
information about the about the update to the West Vine floodplain mapping, previous
studies completed in the West Vine basin, and the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling
process.
Background and Updated Hydraulic Modeling
This floodplain mapping study serves as an update to the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and floodplain
mapping of the West Vine basin completed in 2002. It incorporates revised discharges within the basin
developed as part of the West Vine Basin MODSWMM Conversion and Hydrologic Update, completed by
ICON Engineering, Inc. (ICON) in 2016. The 2016 modeling effort also included revised hydraulic
evaluations for the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (PVL), New Mercer Ditch (NMD), and Larimer County
Canal No. 2 (LCC2) to determine inflows and outflows from each canal system. In addition to the hydrologic
update for the basin, this update also incorporated revised analysis based on updated topographic
mapping along all flow path reaches.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) one-dimensional steady-state hydraulic model
HEC-RAS, version 5.07 was used to complete the floodplain analysis. Initial floodplain
modeling results were compared with a 2D rain-on-grid hydraulic analysis for the basin to
confirm flow paths and results. In some cases, a more detailed 2D study was prepared to
inform the 1D analysis in areas of complicated split flows and other hydraulic parameters.
Hydrologic Analysis
The analysis presented herein was limited to the 100-year storm event which has a 1% chance
in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The hydrologic analysis used for this study
was developed as part of the 2016 West Vine Basin MODSWMM Conversion and Hydrologic
Update. For the current analysis, slight modifications were made to the 2016 hydrology
model. Specifically:
1. EPA-SWMM models were run on version 5.1.013 (previously 5.1.009).
2. Routing for the Hollywood-Irish Detention Pond was updated to better correlate the
resulting water surface in the pond between the EPA-SWMM and HEC-RAS modeling.
This work resulted in slight changes to the routed discharges along the Central, Cherry
& Sunrise flow paths. The modeling revisions resulted in a reduction in discharges
entering the NMD from the Central Flow Path (366cfs to 263cfs). Given this reduction
in flow, unsteady flow routing in the NMD was not completed.
3. The hydrology for the Northern Flow Path was adjusted to account for the split reach
upstream of the development. The basin was split in half and street routing was
added to the model.
4. At the confluence between the Northeastern Flow Path and Central Flow Path, a
change in routing was made to join the basins of the Central Flow Path prior to the
confluence with the Northeastern Flow Path (Node 294 vs Node 293) in order to
isolate flows along the Central Flow Path for the hydraulic analysis.
No other changes were made to the hydrologic discharges and routing presented by the 2016
study.
Previous Hydraulic Modeling
The original hydraulic analysis for the West Vine Basin was developed by EPI in 1980 (EPI,
1980) and further refined by URS in 2003. The EPI model used the 1976 version of the Corps
of Engineers’ HEC-2 water surface profile model. A total of 15 separate reaches were divided
along three main flow paths, the Central, the Southern, and the Southeastern flow paths. The
effects of irrigation ditches and existing road culverts were not included in this study. The
1980 HEC-2 model used a total of ninety-four (94) cross sections. Of these, forty-four (44)
were field surveyed cross sections. The rest of the cross sections were interpreted from 2-
foot topographic maps available at that time (ARIX, 1973). The 1980 Master Drainage Plan
hydraulic model did not incorporate canal spills, conveyance structures at roadways, and
several flow paths later identified by Lidstone and Anderson in their 1998 Hydrology Update
Report.
For the 2003 update, new baseline hydraulics were completed using HEC -RAS, based on the
framework of the previous 1980 hydraulic model. The HEC-RAS model also included several
other major changes such as the identification of the six major flow paths, hydrology
reflecting canal spills and flow intercepted by the canals, consideration of culverts 18 inches
or larger, identification of split flows and extension of the model to the Cache la Poudre River.
The 2003 model also integrated several topographic sources. First, the existing EPI 1980
models were evaluated to determine if any of the surveyed cross sections were applicable.
Additional cross sections were also added (King Survey, 1999 and 2000) to the HEC-RAS
model. Finally, the new City 1-foot topography (Merrick, 1999) was used to verify the
accuracy of the surveyed cross sections and to add more cross sections to the model
wherever necessary.
Shallow Flooding Designation
Shallow flooding areas are designated on the project workmaps at many locations within the
West Vine Basin. In general, the shallow flooding designation reflects locations where a split
flow has not been modeled and discharges have potential to deviate from the identified flow
path represented in the hydraulic model. Shallow flooding areas generally reflect overland
conveyance, in an unconfined manner. Depths for all shallow flooding areas are estimated to
be 1-foot or less in depth.
Updated Hydraulic Model Results
Floodplain mapping results are derived from the HEC-RAS model and include water surface
elevations (WSE), thalweg, energy grade line (EGL), mean and segmented velocities, water
surface top widths, and flow discharge calculated at each cross-section location. The 100-year
floodplain for existing conditions is shown on the project workmaps.
Past effective floodplain and floodway boundaries have been identified on the project
workmaps for comparison purposes. As with the discharge modifications, changes in the
floodplain delineation are notable between the past and the current studies. Below are
several key observations:
1. North of the Colorado and Southern Railroad Embankment, the current study
identifies a new flow path, following the West Vine Outfall Flow Path alignment, north
to the Cache La Poudre River. This channel did not exist in the 2003 study, as such
discharge followed the historic Eastern Flow Path alignment.
2. The flood hazard area upstream of Vine Drive and the Vine Overflow generally
increased over the effective boundary. This is likely due to the use of new project
mapping in this area and additional analysis for the split flow along Vine Drive.
3. Detailed flood hazards replaced the past shallow flooding effective boundary at the
intersection of the Central Flow Path with Lyons Street. The current study provided
more cross-sections in this area to model the roadway overtopping and junction with
the Southeast Flow Path.
4. Two distinct floodplain and floodway boundaries have been identified for the Southern
and Southeastern Flow Paths downstream of the Larimer County Canal Number 2
irrigation ditch (LCC No.2). The flood hazards for the Southeastern Flow Path also
increased in this area due to increased discharges from the 2016 Hydrology Study.
Identification of these flow paths also resulted in the identification of split flows along
Frey and Bryan Avenues.
5. The limits of the Northern Flow Path changed dramatically as it follows the topography
surrounding the subdivision, west of the NMD. The effective flood hazards have also
been refined west of Hill Crest Drive, reflecting the current hydrologic boundaries and
division of discharge between flow paths.
6. Flood hazards along the Central Flow Path remain similar to the 2003 delineation
upstream of the NMD. Flood hazards in and around the Green Acres Subdivision have
been refined based on the analysis described above and evaluation of the overflow
channel. The flood hazards vary significantly along the Cherry/Sunrise Reach due to
topographic differences.
7. Along the Southern Reach, the updated flood hazards are also similar to the past 2003
mapping upstream of the Poudre High School campus. Through the campus and
downstream to the LCC No.2, flood hazards changed dramatically with the addition of
detail added to model split flows and canal spills.
8. Flood hazards for the Northern and Central flow paths were removed east of the LCC
No.2 based on the hydrologic findings from the 2016 Hydrology Study.
Theodore Bender, PE, CFM Michael Pierce, PE
Manager, Stormwater Engineering Civil Engineer III, Stormwater Engineering
0+
0
05+00
10+
0
0
15
+
0
0
20+00
25
+
0
0
0+005+0010+00 15+00 20+0025+00 30+0035+00 40+0045+0050+0055+0060+0065+0070+0075+0080+00
85+00
90+0
0
95+00
100
+
0
0
105
+
0
0
110+0
0
11
5
+
0
0
120+00
125
+
0
0
130+00
13
5
+
0
0
140
+
0
0
145+
0
0
150+
0
0
155+00
160
+
0
0
16
5
+
0
0
170+
0
0
17
5
+
0
0
180
+
0
0
185+
0
0
0+0
0
5+
0
0
10
+
0
0
15+
0
0
20+00
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
35+00
40
+
0
0
45
+
0
0
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
0+
0
0
0+
0
0
5+0
0
10+
0
0
15+00
LAPORTE AVE SU
N
S
E
T
S
T
HO
L
L
Y
W
O
O
D
S
T
MULBERRY ST
OV
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
L
TA
F
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
LAPORTE AVE
Hollywood Irish Detention Pond
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LA
R
I
M
E
R
CO
U
N
T
Y
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
LARIMER COUNTY
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
R
T
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
LA
R
I
M
E
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
3' x 6' RCBC
24" RCP
LARIMERCOUNTY
N
I
M
P
A
L
A
D
R
Poudre High School
CHERRY ST
Central Flow Path - Reach 5
Central Flow Path - Reach 6
Southern Flow Path - Reach PHS Split
Southern Flow Path - Reach 2
Southern Flow Path - Reach 3
Southern Flow Path - Reach High School OF
Southern Flow Path - Reach 4
Southern Flow Path - Reach Overland OF Southern Flow Path - Reach 5
Southern Flow Path - Reach 6
LA
R
I
M
E
R
CO
U
N
T
Y
Central Flow Path - Reach Cherry Sunrise Central Flow Path - Reach Cherry Sunrise
328 / 5,044.67262/5,044.58
438 / 5,0
4
4
.
8
4
154
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
0
0
5140
5130
50
5
0
50
4
0
5120
5110
51
0
0
50
9
0
50
9
0
50
8
0
5070
506
0
512
0
5060
5110
50
8
0
509
0
5090
5150
51
5
0
5150
51205120
5120
5120
511
0
50
9
0
509
0
5080
50
8
0
50
8
0
5080
50
8
0
5070
5080
5080
506
0
5060
50
7
0
5060
5060
50
5
0
50
5
0
5120
5120
5110
5110
5090
5070
5060
5050
5050
Pleasant Valley
andLakeCanal
LarimerCounty
CanalNo2
PleasantValley
andLake Canal
New Mercer Ditch
38
0
2
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
7
5
37
6
6
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
2
4
38
7
4
/
5
,
0
8
4
.
9
0
2259 / 5,065.56
2157 / 5,064.63
1828 / 5,063.04
29
4
1
/
5
,
0
7
2
.
5
9
2355 / 5,066.46
30
9
9
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
8
7
1946 / 5,063.34
3148
/
5,075.53
2439/
5,066.42
288
8
/
5
,
0
7
2
.
2
9
30
6
3
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
5
241
3
/
5
,
0
6
6
.
7
8
33
1
6
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
6
1758 /5,063.04
16141
/
5,090.58
3437 / 5,073.97
938
0
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
8
6
15894
/
5,088.86
15913/
5,088.99
208
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
4
7
3187 /5,076.00
3428 / 5,080.56
3227 / 5,076.67
28
0
8
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
4
1707 /5,063.07
18
5
0
6
/
5
,
1
0
5
.
3
6
2574
/
5,
073.72
16
1
8
1
/
5
,
0
9
1
.
0
6
15871/5,088.39
15841/5,086.83
2603
/
5,073.94
143
5
5
/
5
,
0
7
8
.
9
8
16
5
3
6
/
5
,
0
9
3
.
0
8
15781
/
5,086.49
155
4
2
/
5
,
0
8
4
.
9
8
40
8
7
/
5
,
0
8
5
.
3
8
16099
/
5,090.26
1528
4
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
9
0
1519
8
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
6
6
17
3
1
3
/
5
,
0
9
9
.
8
1
15406 / 5,084.25
16679 / 5,093.98
16
2
3
2
/
5
,
0
9
1
.
4
8
16607/5,093.48
17
1
7
2
/
5
,
0
9
8
.
5
9
16063
/
5,090.10
44
4
4
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
5
9
14292/5,078.63
14
9
4
4
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
2
2
42
6
3
/
5
,
0
8
6
.
7
2
38
8
4
/
5
,
0
8
5
.
1
1
16486/5,092.76
16269
/
5,
091.68
150
0
6
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
2
9
18477
/
5,105.11
43
4
9
/
5
,
0
8
8
.
3
1
16317/5,091.76
17667/5,100.67
15650
/
5,085.84
18275/5,104.58
16509
/
5,092.85
17425
/
5,100.01
17
5
5
0
/
5
,
1
0
0
.
3
0
17
0
5
9
/
5
,
0
9
6
.
6
4
15085
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
6
1
79
/
5
,
0
8
6
.
2
8
18
2
/
5
,
0
8
7
.
4
9
1459 / 5,074.00
46
5
0
/
5
,
0
7
6
.
3
6
14222/5,078.35
18347/5,104.68
181
/5,050.50
16405/5,091.94
18222/5,104.22
14426/5,080.29
22
2
/
5
,
1
0
6
.
7
8
145
1
3
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
0
6
693/
5,066.30
148
5
4
/
5
,
0
8
3
.
1
6
17
2
8
/
5
,
0
6
2
.
9
3
33
7
/
5
,
1
0
8
.
2
7
19
0
9
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
8
7
14088 /5,078.2314149 / 5
,
0
7
8
.
9
0
12952/5,070.69
1686
5
/
5
,
0
9
5
.
0
2
18040/5,103.17
2246
/
5,066.79
43
5
6
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
6
18
4
4
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
2
2
25
3
/
5
,
0
8
7
.
9
9
28
1
/
5
,
1
0
7
.
4
9
147
1
4
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
8
4
12865 /5,069.99
11977/5,062.89
177
5
8
/
5
,
1
0
1
.
0
5
17
9
5
2
/
5
,
1
0
2
.
3
7
1048/5,069.48
42
5
8
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
4
11
8
9
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
4
2
17833/5,101.44
54
3
/
5
,
0
8
9
.
3
2
59
4
/
5
,
0
8
9
.
7
7
2526
/
5,068.71
8526 / 5,0
3
7
.
6
3
8705 / 5,038.48
146
2
1
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
7
4
12755/5,068.97
557
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
9
7
3693 /5,074.06
35
6
/
5
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
700/
5,090.
33
12676/5,068.15
922
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
3
5
12
3
3
1
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
0
4
180
/
5
,
1
0
6
.
3
2
142
/
5
,
1
0
5
.
4
8
13042/5,071.39
12819 /5,069.49
122
1
/
5
,
0
7
0
.
9
8
589/5,046.05
1534 /5,062.87
8915 / 5,040.05
13
2
9
0
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
4
5
13859/5,077.00
12422
/
5,064.71
12
2
0
9
/
5
,
0
6
3
.
0
3
12542/5,065.20
20
4
3
/
5
,
0
6
5
.
8
8
139
9
9
/
5
,
0
7
7
.
3
9
13962 /5,077.36
9138 / 5,042.41
92
5
/
5
,
0
5
6
.
5
5
26
3
4
/
5
,
0
6
9
.
8
2
11737/5,062.01
23
9
4
/
5
,
0
6
7
.
5
2
1645/5,063.07
9784/5,047.03
938
0
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
8
6
40
7
9
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
395
7
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
42
1
1
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
622
/
5,055.76
30
1
/
5
,
0
6
2
.
8
9
13
6
8
7
/
5
,
0
7
6
.
3
0
96
7
2
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
6
2
27
0
/
5
,
0
5
0
.
5
6
957
7
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
0
3
135
8
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
2
2
242 /5,050.54
9878
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
4
2
106
1
9
/
5
,
0
5
1
.
8
3
1389
6
/
5
,
0
7
7
.
0
8
1348
2
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
9
9
43
7
/
5,055.76
37
0
/
5
,
0
5
5
.
7
6
100
0
0
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
8
3
10798/5,053.8511
5
1
2
/
5
,
0
5
8
.
4
2
109
5
6
/
5
,
0
5
5
.
7
5
11722
/
5,060.12
944
2
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
7
9
10904/5,054.98
10445/5,050.94
11
4
0
5
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
6
1
11146
/
5,057.53
10338/5,050.86
10036/5,049.99
11
1
1
1
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
3
1
11302
/
5,057.57
11646/5,059.85
11
2
0
0
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
5
3
60 /5,062.59
Cross Section
Stream Centerline
Lateral Structure
Canal
Culvert under Roadway
)
))
)Bridge
NFHL Political Boundary
Effective Floodway
Effective 100 Year Floodplain
Effective <=1 Ft
Proposed Flood Zones
0.5' Floodway
100-Year Floodplain
100-Year Shallow Flooding (1' Depth)
NFHL Flood Zones
100-Year Floodplain
Floodway
500-Year Floodplain
Major Contour - 10'
Minor Contour - 2'
Figure 1- South
Figure 2- North Figure3 - East
West Vine Basin100 - Year Floodplain Workmap
µ0 200 400 600 800100
Feet
Date: 8/6/2020
0+
0
05+00
10+
0
0
15
+
0
0
20+00
25
+
0
0
0+005+00
10+0
0
15+
0
0
20+00
25+00
30+00
35+0
0
40+0045+00
50
+
0
0
55+00
60
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
75
+
0
0
80+00
85+00
90+0
0
95+00
100
+
0
0
105
+
0
0
110+0
0
11
5
+
0
0
120+00
125
+
0
0
130+00
13
5
+
0
0
140
+
0
0
145+
0
0
150+
0
0
155+00
160
+
0
0
16
5
+
0
0
170+
0
0
17
5
+
0
0
180
+
0
0
185+
0
0
0+0
0
5+
0
0
10
+
0
0
15+
0
0
20+00
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
35+00
40
+
0
0
45
+
0
0
0+00
5+0
0
0+00
5+
0
0
10
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
0+0
0
5+00
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
35
+
0
0
0+00
5+00
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25+00
30
+
0
0
35
+
0
0
40+00
45+00
50+0
0
0+00
5+00
0+00
5+00
0+00
5+00
0+
0
0
5+0
0
10+
0
0
15+00
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
SU
N
S
E
T
S
T
W VINE DR
N
T
A
F
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
DR
LIBERTY DR
LANCER DR
Hollywood Irish Detention Pond
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LA
R
I
M
E
R
CO
U
N
T
Y
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
LARIMER COUNTY
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
6' x 3' RCBC
24" RCP
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
SU
N
R
I
S
E
L
N
N
B
I
R
C
H
W
O
O
D
RD
Northern Flow Path - Reach North 1
Northern Flow Path - Reach 1
Northern Flow Path - Reach 2
Central Flow Path - Reach Cherry Sunrise
Central Flow Path - Reach 5
Southern Flow Path - Reach 1
Northeastern Flow Path - Reach 1
Central Flow Path - Reach 3
Central Flow Path - Reach 2
Southern Flow Path - Reach 2
Southern Flow Path - Reach OF 2
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 3
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 2
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 4
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 5
Central Flow Path - Reach 1
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 1
Vine OverflowFlow Path - Reach Overflow
Central Flow Path - Reach 6
Southern Flow Path - Reach PHS Split
Southern Flow Path - Reach 3
1946 / 5,063.34
12
4
2
2
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
7
1
11
0
1
/
5
,
0
7
0
.
1
8
12
2
0
9
/
5
,
0
6
3
.
0
3
5183
/
5,017.78
382 /5,042.66
51
8
3
/
5
,
0
1
7
.
7
8
509
0
508
0
5020
5010
50
6
0 505
0
50
4
0
50
3
0
5040
50
3
0
50
7
0
50
6
0
506
0
50
5
0
5040
5030
50
3
0
50
2
0
5070
50
9
0
5060
5050
5050
5020
5090
50
9
0
5080
5080
5080
5060
50
7
0
50
5
0
5060
50
6
0
50
6
0
50
5
0
50
5
0
505
0
505
0
5030
5040
5040
5040
50
3
0
5020
5030
5030
5030
5030
5000
5010
5000
5050
5030
5030
5010
5010
Larimer
Cou
n
t
yCanalNo2
NewMercerDitch
LarimerCountyCanalNo2
NewMercerDitch
NewMercerDitch
Larimer County Ca nal No 2
2259 / 5,065.56
12
5
4
2
/
5
,
0
6
5
.
2
0
2157 / 5,064.63
1828 / 5,063.04
29
4
1
/
5
,
0
7
2
.
5
9
2355 / 5,066.46
12
3
3
1
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
0
4
30
9
9
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
8
7
1360/5,072.71
3148
/
5,075.53
2439
/
5,066.42
288
8
/
5
,
0
7
2
.
2
9
30
6
3
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
5
241
3
/
5
,
0
6
6
.
7
8
33
1
6
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
6
19
1
0
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
9
6
1758 /5,063.04
59
9
/
5
,
0
6
7
.
7
0
2600
/
5
,
0
2
9
.
4
8
45
6
/
5
,
0
6
7
.
0
5
10
1
8
/
5
,
0
6
9
.
5
2
17
8
9
/
5
,
0
6
7
.
2
8
2531 /
5
,
0
2
9
.
1
7
2467 / 5,028.7
5
3437 / 5,073.97
3187 /5,076.00
75
2
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
3
1
2626/5,029.69
624 / 5,036.81
3428 / 5,080.56
3227 / 5,076.67
28
0
8
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
9
4
3802/
5,
0
8
2
.
7
5
1707 /5,063.07
122
1
/
5
,
0
7
0
.
9
8
683 / 5,037.25
2574
/
5,073.72
89
4
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
9
2
18
4
9
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
1
3
13
2
3
/
5
,
0
7
1
.
9
8
194
9
/
5
,
0
6
9
.
3
4
122 /
5
,
0
5
3
.
6
4
2603
/
5,073.94
5360
/
5
,
0
4
8
.
1
7
2388/5,028.40
11977
/
5,062.89
12
5
8
/
5
,
0
7
1
.
5
7
26
8
4
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
0
1
11
8
9
/
5
,
0
7
1
.
1
9
16
2
8
/
5
,
0
6
6
.
0
9
543 /5,035.51
483
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
5
4
31
5
6
/
5
,
0
8
2
.
4
8
3766/5,082.24
332 /5,065.91
1433
/
5,073.40
203 /5,038.13
54
4
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
4
2
723 /5,037.46
312 /5,040.89
328 / 5,044.67
44
4
4
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
5
9
458 / 5,033.38
262 / 5,044.58
104
8
/
5
,
0
6
9
.
4
8
38
7
4
/
5
,
0
8
4
.
9
0
615 /5,048.68
562 / 5,034.45
40
8
7
/
5
,
0
8
5
.
3
8
33
8
7
/
5
,
0
8
5
.
0
7
439/5,034.57
51
7
5
/
5
,
0
4
5
.
8
1
639 / 5,034.73
3646
/
5,
035.53
15
1
0
/
5
,
0
6
6
.
1
0
26/5,051.63
18
0
8
/
5
,
0
2
2
.
1
8
696 / 5,034.79
438 / 5,0
4
4
.
8
4
343/5,057.10
35
8
0
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
9
1
3794
/
5,037.28
2235
/
5,027.74
25
3
6
/
5
,
0
7
6
.
5
2
208 /5,044.47
27
6
4
/
5
,
0
7
8
.
7
7
23
3
9
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
1
1
237/5,064.26
1458/5,066.11
42
6
3
/
5
,
0
8
6
.
7
2
5277/5,045.89
46
5
0
/
5
,
0
7
6
.
3
6
181
/5,050.50
2695/5,029.74
29
4
6
/
5
,
0
8
0
.
9
1
2136
/
5,073.62
163
/
5
,
0
3
5
.
8
8
4239 / 5,041.15
64
9
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
1
3
154/5,044.00
21
5
9
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
6
5
18
4
3
/
5
,
0
7
5
.
3
7
16
4
7
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
4
7
23
4
2
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
0
4
238 /5,039.
31
66
8
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
6
2
20
5
5
/
5
,
0
7
7
.
2
7
43
4
9
/
5
,
0
8
8
.
3
1
3702/ 5
,035.94
1239/
5,065.64
47
9
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
2
8
14
6
8
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
4
3
693/5,066.30
17
2
8
/
5
,
0
6
2
.
9
3
17
5
6
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
2
8
32
4
4
/
5
,
0
3
3
.
5
8
835/5,049.36
19
0
9
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
8
7
33
9
8
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
7
8
285/5,056.57
18
2
6
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
7
7
20
8
6
/
5
,
0
7
2
.
0
9
4354 / 5,042.06
756/5,048.38
965
/
5,064.02
2081
/
5,027.10
407/ 5
,057.66
4157 / 5,040.
2
5
922
/
5
,
0
6
8
.
3
5
2246
/
5,066.79
79
2
/
5
,
0
6
1
.
2
1
43
5
6
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
6
18
4
4
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
2
2
4737 / 5,0
4
2
.
6
9
1019/5,064.33
2734/5,030.04
885/5,051.53
23
3
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
8
6
42
5
8
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
4
11
8
2
/
5
,
0
1
7
.
9
4
11
8
9
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
4
2
13
8
4
/
5
,
0
1
8
.
7
4
1906
/5,026.24
2526
/
5,068.71
206/5,055.55
4094 /
5
,
0
4
0
.
1
5
135
8
/
5
,
0
7
3
.
2
2
391
9
/
5
,
0
3
9
.
1
5
16
6
8
/
5
,
0
2
1
.
3
1
557
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
9
7
88
8
/
5
,
0
6
2
.
1
1
3693 /5,074.06
5005
/
5
,
0
4
5
.
4
2
11737
/
5,062.01
3997
/
5
,
0
3
9
.
9
4
16
7
1
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
0
3
28
4
9
/
5
,
0
3
1
.
4
2
61
1
3
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
4
7
59
7
5
/
5
,
0
2
3
.
7
3
1534 /5,062.87
62
7
7
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
7
0
20
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
0
1
58
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
3
.
0
5
64
1
9
/
5,027.04
15
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
7
2
6469/5,027.47
38
8
4
/
5
,
0
8
5
.
1
1
57
4
3
/
5
,
0
2
2
.
3
4
20
4
3
/
5
,
0
6
5
.
8
8
52
5
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
5
5
56
2
4
/
5
,
0
2
1
.
0
0
3024
/
5,032.40
3113
/
5,032.65
68
3
5
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
7
8
595
/
5,05
9.
59
92
5
/
5
,
0
5
6
.
5
5
26
3
4
/
5
,
0
6
9
.
8
2
2156/5,027.69
65
2
4
/
5
,
0
2
7
.
6
6
23
9
4
/
5
,
0
6
7
.
5
2
1645/5,063.07
9784/5,047.03
8705 / 5,038.48
11
5
1
2
/
5
,
0
5
8
.
4
2
4492 / 5
,
0
4
2
.
3
2
40
7
9
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
7770/5,034.31
78
7
5
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
6
9
11722
/
5,060.12
395
7
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
42
1
1
/
5
,
0
7
4
.
0
7
73
7
9
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
1
8
8041/5,035.40
69
6
3
/
5
,
0
3
0
.
2
3
622
/
5,055.76
7137
/
5,031.76
11
4
0
5
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
6
1
7021
/5,03
0
.
537329
/
5
,
0
3
3
.
5
1
30
1
/
5
,
0
6
2
.
8
9
589/5,046.05
967
2
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
6
2
27
0
/
5
,
0
5
0
.
5
6
957
7
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
0
3
11302
/
5,057.57
7069/5,031.49
242 /5,050.54
9878
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
4
2
11646/5,059.85
106
1
9
/
5
,
0
5
1
.
8
3
11146
/
5,057.53
11
2
0
0
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
5
3
11
1
1
1
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
3
1
10798/5,053.8
5
437
/
5,055.76
71
7
5
/
5
,
0
3
2
.
4
2
54
3
0
/
5
,
0
2
0
.
4
4
10956/5,055.75
37
0
/
5
,
0
5
5
.
7
6
53
9
6
/
5
,
0
1
8
.
9
7
10904/ 5
,054.98
54
9
8
/
5
,
0
2
0
.
7
7
8915 / 5,040.05
7560/5,
034.
33
100
0
0
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
8
3
944
2
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
7
9
938
0
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
8
6
10445
/5,050.94
10338 /5,050.86
10036/5,049.99
8341 /5,036.59
8526 / 5,037.63
9138 / 5,042.41
7485
/
5,03
4
.
3
2
74
5
9
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
2
9
8209 / 5,03
5
.
9
6
60/5,062.59
Cross Section
Stream Centerline
Canal
Lateral Structure
Culvert under Roadway
)
))
)Bridge
Major Contour - 10'
Minor Contour - 2'
NFHL Political Boundary
NFHL Flood Zones
100-Year Floodplain
Floodway
500-Year Floodplain
Proposed Flood Zones
0.5' Floodway
100-Year Floodplain
100-Year Shallow Flooding (1' Depth)
Effective Flood Zones
0.5 FOOT FLOODWAY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
<= 1FT
Figure 1
- South
Figure 2
- North
Figure
3 - East
West Vine Basin100 - Year Floodplain Workmap
µ0 200 400 600 800100
Feet
Date: 8/6/2020
)
)
)
)0+0
0
5+0
0
10+0
0
15+
0
0
20+00
25+00
30+00
35+0
0
40+0045+00
50
+
0
0
55+00
60
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
75
+
0
0
80+00
85+00
90+0
0
95+00
100
+
0
0
105
+
0
0
110+0
0
11
5
+
0
0
120+00
125
+
0
0
130+00
13
5
+
0
0
140+
0
0
145+
0
0
150+
0
0
155+00
160
+
0
0
16
5
+
0
0
170+
0
0
17
5
+
0
0
180
+
0
0
185+
0
0
0+0
0
5+
0
0
10
+
0
0
15+
0
0
20+00
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
35+00
40
+
0
0
45
+
0
0
0+00
5+0
0
0+0
0
5+00
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
35
+
0
0
0+00
5+00
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25+00
30
+
0
0
35
+
0
0
40+00
45+00
50+0
0
0+00
5+00
0+00
5+00
0+00
5+00
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
10+00
15
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
N
T
A
F
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
LIBERTY DR
N
S
H
I
E
L
D
S
S
T
W VINE DR
ELM ST
CHERRY ST
LANCER DR
AZ
T
E
C
D
R
LAPORTE AVE
LA
R
I
M
E
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LARIMER COUNTY
LARIMER COUNTY
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
CITY OF FORTCOLLINS
24" RCP
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LARIMER COUNTY
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
R
T
CO
L
L
I
N
S
LARIMERCOUNTY
LARIMER COUNTY
CITY OF FORTCOLLINS
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
R
T
CO
L
L
I
N
S
West Vine OutfallFlow Path - Reach 1
Vine Overflow Flow Path - Reach Split North
Vine Overflow Flow Path - Reach Split South
West Vine OutfallFlow Path - Reach 2
Vine Overflow Flow Path - Reach Overflow
West Vine OutfallFlow Path - Reach 3
Northern Flow Path - Reach 1
Southern Flow Path - Reach 1
Northeastern Flow Path - Reach 1
Central Flow Path - Reach 3
Central Flow Path - Reach 2
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 4
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 5
Southern Flow Path - Reach 2
Southern Flow Path - Reach OF 2 Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 3
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 2
Southeastern Flow Path - Reach 1
Central Flow Path - Reach 1
Central Flow Path - Reach 5
237
/
5
,
0
6
4
.
2
6
2531 /
5
,
0
2
9
.
1
7
2388/5,028.40
785 / 5,013.84
543 /5,035.51
871 /5,014.18
382 /5,042.66
5010
5000
4980
5060
5050
5040
5030
50
2
0
50
1
0
50
4
0
5020
50
1
0
501
0
5020
5000
505
0
50
5
0
5060
50
6
0
50
6
0
50
6
0
5060
50
6
0
506
0
5060
50
5
0
5050
505
0
505
0
5050
5050
5030
5030
50
3
0
5040
5040
5040
5030
5020
5030
5030
5030
5030
50
3
0
5030
5030
50
1
0
5010
5000
5000
4990
4990
4990
4990
5060
5060
5030
5030
5000
5000
50
0
5
50
0
0
5000
4990
4985
5005
499
5
5005
50
0
5
50
0
0
Larimer
CountyCanalNo2
NewMercerDitch
New Mercer Ditch
LarimerCountyCanalNo2
LarimerCounty
CanalNo2
332
/
5
,
0
6
5
.
9
1
24
1
/
4
,
9
8
9
.
1
3
17
5
/
4
,
9
8
8
.
9
3
115/4,987.59
103/4,986.58
100/4,986.25
78/4,984.30
73/4,984.11
2758 /5,000.07
50 /4,982.21
144
7
/
4
,
9
9
2
.
5
5
987 / 5,021.59
2859 / 5
,
0
0
0
.
6
9
1661 /
4
,
9
9
3
.
5
2
2825 /
5
,
0
0
0
.
4
0
1731 / 4
,
9
9
4
.
6
5
1813 / 4,
9
9
5
.
2
3
45 /4,981.70
1916/4,995.94
1064 / 4,990.98
2600
/
5
,
0
2
9
.
4
8
40
3
/
4
,
9
8
9
.
8
2
559 / 5,018.32
757 / 4,9
9
0
.
2
0
1691 /
4
,
9
9
3
.
7
0
2467 / 5,028.7
5
2470 /4,998.40
2626/5,029.69
624 / 5,036.81
26
2
5
/
4
,
9
9
9
.
5
2
2120
/
4
,
9
9
6
.
7
7
1204 / 5,023.66
2274 / 4,997.4
5
683 / 5,037.25
19
4
/
5
,
0
1
0
.
5
1
731 / 5,019.66
710 / 5,013.70
26
6
/
5
,
0
1
0
.
5
8
43
7
/
5
,
0
1
1
.
0
7
122 /
5
,
0
5
3
.
6
4
5360
/
5
,
0
4
8
.
1
7
56
3
/
5
,
0
1
1
.
9
9
26
8
4
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
0
1
29
3
/
5
,
0
1
2
.
2
8
483
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
5
4
203/5,038.13
54
4
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
4
2
723 /5,037.46
312 /5,040.89
328 / 5,044.67
458 / 5,033.38
104
/
5,010.06
262 / 5,044.58
63
9
/
5
,
0
1
3
.
8
9
645
/
5
,
0
1
3
.
1
7
615 /5,048.68
562 / 5,034.45
50
2
/
5
,
0
1
3
.
2
2
2907 / 5,001.04
41
1
/
5
,
0
1
2
.
9
4
439/5,034.57
51
7
5
/
5
,
0
4
5
.
8
1
733/5,014.98
639 / 5,034.73
3646
/
5,035.53
3049 /5,002.92
26/5,051.63
18
0
8
/
5
,
0
2
2
.
1
8
91
6
/
5
,
0
1
6
.
9
0
696 / 5,034.79
3153 / 5,003.41
438 / 5,0
4
4
.
8
4
343/5,057.10
35
8
0
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
9
1
3794
/
5,037.28
22
3
5
/
5
,
0
2
7
.
7
4
208/5,044.47
5277/5,045.89
3223 / 5,003.86
3263 / 5,004.47
181
/5,050.50
2695/5,029.74
163 /
5
,
0
3
5
.
8
8
4239 / 5,041.15
3194 / 5,003.76
64
9
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
1
3
154/5,044.00
23
4
2
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
0
4
238 /5,039.31
66
8
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
6
2
3702/5,035.94
47
9
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
2
8
3373 / 5,005.06
3477 / 5,005.38
3651 / 5,006.15
17
5
6
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
2
8
32
4
4
/
5
,
0
3
3
.
5
8
835/5,049.36
33
9
8
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
7
8
285/5,056.57
18
2
6
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
7
7
4354 / 5,042.06
756/5,048.38
2081
/
5,027.10
407/5,057.66
4157 / 5,040.
2
5
35
2
/
5
,
0
1
0
.
8
0
4737 / 5,04
2
.
6
9
22
0
/
5
,
0
1
1
.
6
0
2734/5,030.04
885/5,051.53
23
3
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
8
6
11
8
2
/
5
,
0
1
7
.
9
4
13
8
4
/
5
,
0
1
8
.
7
4
1906
/5,026.24
206/5,055.55
4094 /
5
,
0
4
0
.
1
5
3919
/
5
,
0
3
9
.
1
5
98
/
5
,
0
1
0
.
5
7
16
6
8
/
5
,
0
2
1
.
3
1
5005
/
5
,
0
4
5
.
4
2
3997
/
5
,
0
3
9
.
9
4
16
7
1
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
0
3
28
4
9
/
5
,
0
3
1
.
4
2
61
1
3
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
4
7
59
7
5
/
5
,
0
2
3
.
7
3
62
7
7
/
5
,
0
2
5
.
7
0
20
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
0
1
58
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
3
.
0
5
64
1
9
/
5
,
0
2
7
.
0
4
15
6
2
/
5
,
0
2
4
.
7
2
1420/5,024.56
5183
/
5,017.78
48
5
1
/
5
,
0
1
5
.
3
1
6469
/
5,027.47
43
6
1
/
5
,
0
1
4
.
2
6
57
4
3
/
5
,
0
2
2
.
3
4
50
0
0
/
5
,
0
1
5
.
5
0
52
5
/
5
,
0
5
9
.
5
5
56
2
4
/
5
,
0
2
1
.
0
0
42
8
5
/
5
,
0
1
4
.
1
1
3024
/
5,032.40
3113/
5,032.65
68
3
5
/
5
,
0
2
8
.
7
8
4220
/
5,013.71
46
4
5
/
5
,
0
1
4
.
8
7
595
/
5,059.59
45
4
1
/
5
,
0
1
4
.
8
0
47
2
8
/
5
,
0
1
4
.
9
7
411
5
/
5
,
0
1
3
.
5
9
2156/5,027.69
65
2
4
/
5
,
0
2
7
.
6
6
4004
/
5
,
0
1
3
.
4
5
97
8
4
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
0
3
8705 / 5,038.48
4492 / 5
,
0
4
2
.
3
2
7770/5,034.3
1
3746 / 5,010.77
78
7
5
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
6
9
73
7
9
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
1
8
3770 / 5,012.43
8041/5,035.40
69
6
3
/
5
,
0
3
0
.
2
3
7137
/
5,031.76
7021
/
5,030.537329
/
5
,
0
3
3
.
5
1
589/5,046.05
96
7
2
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
6
2
27
0
/
5
,
0
5
0
.
5
6
3939 / 5,0
1
3
.
4
3
957
7
/
5
,
0
4
6
.
0
3
7069/5,031.49
242 /5,050.54
9878
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
4
2
3792 / 5,012.87
106
1
9
/
5
,
0
5
1
.
8
3
3826 / 5,013.13
437
/
5,055.76
71
7
5
/
5
,
0
3
2
.
4
2
54
3
0
/
5
,
0
2
0
.
4
4
37
0
/
5
,
0
5
5
.
7
6
53
9
6
/
5
,
0
1
8
.
9
7
54
9
8
/
5
,
0
2
0
.
7
7
8915 / 5,040.05
7560/5,034.33
100
0
0
/
5
,
0
4
7
.
8
3
10798/5,053.85
109
5
6
/
5
,
0
5
5
.
7
5
944
2
/
5
,
0
4
4
.
7
9
938
0
/
5
,
0
4
3
.
8
6
10904/5,054.98
10445/5,050.94
11146
/
5,057.
53
10338 /5,050.86
10036/5,049.99
11
1
1
1
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
3
1
8341/5,036.59
11302
/
5,057.57
8526 / 5,037.63
11
2
0
0
/
5
,
0
5
7
.
5
3
9138 / 5,042.41
7485
/
5,03
4
.
3
2
74
5
9
/
5
,
0
3
4
.
2
9
8209 / 5,03
5
.
9
6
Cross Section
Stream Centerline
Canal
Lateral Structure
Culvert
)
))
)Bridge
As-Built Channel Grading
Major Contour - 10'
Minor Contour - 2'
NFHL Political Boundary
NFHL Flood Zones
100-Year Floodplain
Floodway
500-Year Floodplain
Proposed Flood Zones
0.5' Floodway
100-Year Floodplain
100-Year Shallow Flooding (1' Depth)
Effective Flood Zones
0.5 FOOT FLOODWAY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
<= 1FT
Figure 1
- South
Figure 2
- North Figure
3 - East
West Vine Basin100 - Year Floodplain Workmap
µ0 200 400 600 800100
Feet
Date: 7/14/2020