HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2025 - Water Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingWATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2025 (revised 07-11-25)
07/17/2025 Agenda (revised 07-11-25) Page 1 of 3
Participate online via Microsoft Teams or in person at 222 Laporte Ave.,
Colorado River Community Room, 1st Floor
Microsoft Teams – See Link Below
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 PM
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (3 minutes per individual)
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 5
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Microsoft Teams Need help?
Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 225 710 197 000
Passcode: L27tV3cd
Online Public Participation:
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 PM, July 17, 2025. Participants
should try to sign in prior to the 5:30 PM meeting start time, 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 online Teams session to
ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Water Commission.
To participate:
1. Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones
with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). 2. You need to have access to the internet. 3. Keep yourself on muted status.
Masks Strongly Recommended in Indoor Public Spaces
While there are currently no public health orders in place, Larimer County Public Health
officials strongly recommend that well-fitting, high-quality masks are worn in crowded
indoor spaces.
For more information, please visit fcgov.com/covid
WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2025 (revised 07-11-25)
07/17/2025 Agenda (revised 07-11-25) Page 2 of 3
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Staff Reports
i. Financial Monthly Report
(Meeting packet only/No presentation/Staff available for questions)
Joe Wimmer, Utilities Finance Director
ii. Water Conservation Annual Report
(Meeting packet only/No presentation/Staff available for questions)
Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist
This item will be presented to City Council at an upcoming meeting as part of
the memo packet only.
iii. Drinking Water Quality Policy Annual Report and
Submission of Consumer Confidence Report
(Meeting packet only/No presentation/Staff available for questions)
Erik Monahan, Technical Services Supervisor
Cindy Farnes, Environmental Regulatory Specialist
This report is designed to fulfill the requirements designated by the City of Fort
Collins Water Quality Policy Resolution 93-144. This report includes relevant
data for the efforts made to maintain exceptional water quality for the
community. Submission of report will not require discussion.
iv. Key Findings from the Water Reclamation and Biosolids Master Plan
(Presentation: 15 minutes, Discussion: 20 minutes)
Kelly Wasserbach, Special Projects Manager,
Water Systems Engineering Division
Christina Schroeder, Director, Plant Operations,
Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division
The Water Reclamation and Biosolids Master Plan helps identify the landscape
for the next 20 years at the treatment facility. It outlines the anticipated capital
improvement projects and any new regulations that are on the horizon. Staff
presented the initial scope of the plan to the Water Commission in 2023 with a
request to come back when the plan was complete. This is an update on the
findings found through the planning process.
b. Regular Items
i. Mid-Cycle Appropriation from Wastewater Reserves for North Process
Train Blower Replacement
(Presentation: 5 minutes, Discussion & Action: 3 minutes)
Christina Schroeder, Plant Director, Drake Water Reclamation Facility, Water
Reclamation and Biosolids Division
WATER COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2025 (revised 07-11-25)
07/17/2025 Agenda (revised 07-11-25) Page 3 of 3
Staff requests a Water Commission recommendation for City Council approval of
a mid-cycle appropriation from wastewater reserves for North Process Train
Blower Replacements at Drake Water Reclamation Facility. These funds will
allow replacement of a failed blower that is currently inoperable to comply with
discharge permit requirements. This item is scheduled for the August 19 City
Council meeting.
ii. Mid-Cycle Appropriation from Water Reserves for Emergency Replacement
of Lemay Avenue Waterline
(Presentation: 5 minutes, Discussion & Action: 3 minutes)
Andrew Gingerich, Director of Water Field Operations
Staff requests a Water Commission recommendation for City Council approval of
a mid-cycle appropriation from water reserves for emergency replacement of the
20-inch waterline – originally constructed in 1977 – in Lemay Avenue between
Harmony Road and Harbor Walk, which has suffered seven leaks over two
months. Each leak required full road closure of a busy arterial roadway and cost
approximately $20,000 per repair. The replacement will reduce ongoing risk to
staff and public.
iii. Water Efficiency Plan (WEP) Request for Recommendation
(Presentation: 15 minutes, Discussion & Action: 10 minutes)
Alice Conovitz, Water Conservation Specialist
Water Conservation staff seeks Water Commission’s recommendation to City
Council for adoption of updated WEP at Council’s Sept. 2 meeting. This follows
the June 5 Water Commission work session discussion.
8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
(Committees, event attendance, etc.)
9. OTHER BUSINESS
(Commissioner concerns, announcements)
10. ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 PM
Page 1 of 5
06/05/2025 DRAFT Minutes
Water Commission
REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES
Thursday, June 5, 2025 5:30 PM
700 Wood St. (Utilities Service Center), Poudre Conference Room
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:32 PM
2. ROLL CALL
a. Commissioners Present (in person): Chairperson Jordan Radin,
Commissioners James Bishop, Laura Chartrand, Rick Kahn, Carson Madryga
and Nick Martin
b. Commissioners Present (online): Commissioner Greg Steed
c. Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Paul Herman and Nicole Ng
d. Staff Members Present (in person): Jill Oropeza, Katherine Martinez, Alice
Conovitz, Madeline Duke, Katie Collins
e. Staff Members Present (online): Michael Neale
f. Guests: None
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. COMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION
None
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 15
Chairperson Radin asked Water Commissioners if they had any suggested revisions
on the May 15 draft minutes. There were none.
Commissioner Martin moved to approve the May 15 minutes as presented.
Commissioner Chartrand seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 7-0
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. STAFF REPORTS
i. Memo: Spring 2025 Water Shortage Response Planning
Water Resources Engineer II Michael Neale was present to answer
questions. No discussion. A commissioner commented on the day’s
rain.
Page 2 of 5
06/05/2025 DRAFT Minutes
b. Regular Items
i. Water Efficiency Plan (WEP) Update
Water Conservation Specialist Alice Conovitz gave an overview of
the state-required Water Efficiency Plan
(https://ourcity.fcgov.com/wep ) and its scope, and presented
revisions made since last updating Water Commission in March
2025. Staff support included Acting Water Conservation Manager
Katie Collins and Program Assistant Madeline Duke.
The WEP guides water use and efficiency, minimizes risk of water
shortage, prioritizes strategies (programs, incentives, policies). The
2015 goal was 130 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2030. The
new efficiency goals are meant to lower risk and build resilience in
answer to the public’s concerns about water scarcity and providing
for future generations; related targets under the goals are volume
metric-driven: Goal 1: Reach 4% annual reduction in water demand
by 2040. Goal 2: Improve efficiency and build resilience on City-
owned landscapes
Ms. Conovitz requested the Water Commission’s feedback on the
revised draft plan. Staff will return on July 17 to request the Water
Commission’s recommendation to City Council for adoption of the
updated WEP at Council’s Sept. 2 meeting.
Discussion Highlights
Commissioners suggested the following additions to the draft plan:
1) Impacts in the event other entities’ boundaries change and
whether these can be incorporated into the plan, such as the
Northern Integrated Supply Project’s planned Glade Reservoir (Ms.
Conovitz replied they can consider these but the WEP focuses on
Fort Collins Utilities’ service area)
2) Average number of turf grass per single family residence (staff
replied average conversion in Xeriscape Incentive Program is
approximately 1,200 s.f.)
3) Explain mechanisms used to achieve goals, which would make the
plan more compelling, if this is within the plan’s scope; i.e. how the
WEP is translated into practice (Ms. Conovitz replied there is a
section of the plan detailing metrics, and that the state simply
requires a water efficiency plan but doesn’t monitor progress)
4) Halligan Water Supply Project and what the projected increase
would be. Rationale: goal is measured against uncertain projected
demand, so how do you achieve it? (Ms. Conovitz replied that staff’s
Water Supply Vulnerability Study addressed conditions with and
without Halligan)
5) Council presentation in September provides a golden opportunity
to communicate information on water savings from turf grass to other
Page 3 of 5
06/05/2025 DRAFT Minutes
options, such as xeriscaping, which ties to the City’s xeriscape
program.
Commissioners also commented on and inquired about various
related topics including:
Water usage from 2015 to the present: has there been a greater
reduction in indoor or outdoor demands and Gallons Per Capita Per
Day (GPCD)? Staff researched this and will available at the July 17
meeting if there are additional questions:
Below are figures showing indoor and outdoor water use in million
gallons (top plot) and in gallons per capita per day (bottom plot).
Over the time period shown, we have seen a larger decrease in
indoor water use than in outdoor water use. Note that our analysis
did not control for weather, which has a large influence on outdoor
water use and can drive significant year-to-year variability in outdoor
use. (For example, the sharp decrease in residential and commercial
outdoor water use in 2023 was in response to very high precipitation
during the irrigation season that year.)
While it can be helpful to consider where we’ve seen the biggest
savings in the past, many factors – both anticipated and
unanticipated – are likely to shift where we’ll see the biggest savings
in the future. This is why the Water Conservation portfolio of offerings
is so diversified.
Other topics included whether the goal applies only to residential
water use (Ms. Conovitz replied that it applies to all; new goals are
moving away from the gallons per capita per day (GPCD) metric);
whether the “high growth hot and dry” line in the graph on slide 5 is
data driven (staff replied it is; both ends are modeled based on billed
customer demand); type of model staff used: statistical or other (Ms.
Conovitz replied they use a couple of different models and this one is
linear regression-based; staff works with Colorado Climate Center on
Page 4 of 5
06/05/2025 DRAFT Minutes
narrowing down reasonable inputs for predicted temperature and
precipitation change); climate change; whether the state specifies the
type of model to use (staff replied that the state does not specify the
type of model used and is interested in seeing demand projections);
Some residents are served by Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
(FCLWD) (Senior Director of Integrated Water Sciences and
Planning Jill Oropeza replied by summarizing aspects of the
cooperative relationship between Fort Collins Utilities and FCLWD);
variables that impact demand growth and how it could drive
increased demand (staff replied that this is difficult to predict due to
multiple variables, such as multi-unit versus single unit, and
differences in office buildings, etc., as well as new businesses
coming into the service area; the City’s water rights (Ms. Oropeza
replied that the majority of the our water cannot be reused);
Goal of “Complete 7 City landscape projects by 2040” and
opportunities for education and savings (staff replied with examples,
such as turf conversion at a park, or signage explaining water
savings); shortage preparedness includes one-in-10 year restrictions
that could be, say, two weeks or two months depending on situation;
whether the “5 degrees warmer by 2070” is relative to pre-
development conditions (Ms. Conovitz stated the 30-year baseline
ended approximately 2010);
Trends in the two comparison communities (Castle Rock and Aurora)
mentioned in slide 33 of the presentation that have a more regulatory
approach (water restrictions of three days a week, for example);
return flows as a feedback mechanism; desire by some local
residents to see the Poudre River wet year-round.
Commissioners shared their appreciation for the informative and
interesting presentation, and all the work that went into the
presentation and the plan.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
a. None
9. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Election of Officers
i. Chairperson
ii. Vice Chairperson
Commissioner Kahn moved to elect Commissioner Chartrand as
Chairperson.
Commissioner Bishop seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously 7-0
Commissioner Martin moved to elect Commissioner Bishop as
Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Kahn seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously 7-0
Page 5 of 5
06/05/2025 DRAFT Minutes
b. Tours for Water Commissioners
i. Staff provided an update on tour status for August (Michigan Ditch Wildfire
Mitigation Project: https://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-state-forest/michigan-
ditch-pre-fire-mitigation-project/ ) and October (Oak Street Stormwater
Improvements Project: https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/oak-street-
stormwater-improvements-project ) and will share more details as they
confirm plans.
10. ADJOURNMENT
a. 6:53 PM
Minutes will be approved by the Chair and a vote of the Water Commission on 07/17/2025
1
Water
Wastewater
$5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Revenues
Percent over budget: 2.0%
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Expenses
Percent under budget: -0.1%
$5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Revenues
Percent over budget: 3.2%
$8,012,848
$7,661,488
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Expenses
Percent under budget: 4.4%
$8,352,965
$8,653,923
$5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Revenues
Percent over budget: 3.6%
$4,423,313
$4,236,444
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0
Budget
Actual
Operating Expenses
Percent under budget: 4.2%
2
Water Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 41.7%
May Year to Date
Actual (Under)Budget Actual (Under) Inc/(Dec)Recvd % Act Recvd
Residential Water Sales $ 1,432 * $ 74 $ 6,266 $ 6,420 $ 154 (A)$ 478 34%34%
Com/Indl Water Sales 694 * 35 3,058 3,222 164 (B)350 30%30%
Excess Water Use Surcharge 30 * 25 23 42 19 (C)18 4%2%
District Water Sales 189 * 14 681 770 89 92 28%26%
Other Water Sales 8 * (248)365 120 (245)(D)72 23%11%
PILOTs 139 9 598 638 40 68 33%33%
Operating Revenue 2,492 (90) 10,991 11,211 220 1,078 31%30%
Interest Revenue 171 (42) 1,063 1,040 (24)(E)130 41%39%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 250 146 519 614 95 (1,554) 49%23%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 (6)0%
Other Misc.23 (1)121 110 (11)(F)(153) 38%23%
Total Lapsing Revenue**2,936 12 12,695 12,974 280 (505)32%30%
Non-lapsing Revenue 7 7 7
TOTAL**$ 2,943 $ 12,981 $ (498)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
*
**
Note: Water rate increase of 7.0% for 2025, as budgeted.
Standpipe sales under ($12) based on operational issues with Point of Sale equipment was deactivated at end of 2024. Temporary fix being implemented with Point of Sale to begin being
operable next few months. Irrigation sales under ($233).
PIFs under ($74), with Water Rights over $135, Infrastructure Development Review over $22, and Metering revenue over $14.
April billed revenue is for March and early April.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
Aligns with timing of year, with Use Surcharge beginning to increase.
Commercial sales are 5.4% over budget and 12.2% more than YTD 2024.
Residential sales are 2.5% over budget and 8.1% more than YTD 2024.
3
Water Fund 2025 Department Expense
In thousands `Percent of Year 41.7%
May Year to Date
Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD Bdgt Actual
(Over)/
Under (Inc)/Dec
Actual +
PO's
Spent &
Committed
2025 2025 Bud 2025 2025 2025 Bud 2024 2025 by PO's
Water Treatment $ 810 $ (211)$ 2,386 $ 2,492 $ (106)(A)$ 33 $ 3,350 50%
Water Resources 149 137 1,929 1,890 39 (210) $ 2,078 53%
Water Quality Lab 157 (22)540 505 35 26 $ 613 46%
Subtotal WR&T $ 1,116 $ (96)$ 4,855 $ 4,887 $ (32) $ (151) $ 6,041 50%
Transmission & Distribution 465 (78)1,670 1,846 (176)(B)(277) $ 1,851 40%
Water Meters O&M 124 0 415 384 30 (32) $ 555 52%
Engineering 55 44 313 174 139 (C) (6) $ 174 21%
Subtotal WEFS 644 (35)2,398 2,404 (7)(315) $ 2,580 40%
Water Conservation 123 28 556 457 99 (D)(86) $ 612 41%
PILOTs 139 (9)598 637 (40)(E)(68) $ 637 33%
Admin Services - CS&A 498 (0)2,491 2,491 (0)(295) $ 2,491 42%
Other Payments & Transfers 156 (0)925 960 (34)(F)(19) $ 963 37%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 2,676 $ (111)$ 11,822 $ 11,836 0 $ (14) $ (934) $ 13,324 44%
Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0
Minor Capital 205 202 1,148 582 566 (407) $ 1,397 67%
Total Lapsing $ 2,881 $ 90 $ 12,970 $ 12,419 $ 552 $ (1,340) $ 14,721 45%
Non-lapsing Expenses 0 0 0
TOTAL $ 2,881 $ 12,419 $ (1,340)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
PILOTs (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) are 6% of operating revenues that are paid to the General Fund. Revenue is over budget thus this expense is as well.
Legal Services over ($34) for the Open International lawsuit, with appeal filed by defendant pending outcome.
Underspend in City and Community Programs $31, Hi Effiency Rebates $35, Conservation Rebates $28 and Water Eff Landscape Rebates $3. These incentive/rebate program expense will fluctuate through the year based
on program offerings and demand. WC recently incorporated a bonus incentive to support the Xeriscape Program. While costs historically have been underspent, demand will increase through year-end providing increase in
WTF operations under $9 in personnel due to two FTE's with new titles to align with One Water Operator alignment incorrectly having business unit allocated to wastewater business unit. Payroll correcting entry was not
completed as of May end. Water Assessment charges over ($26) but payment to Northern Water for Pleasant Valley Pipeline Ops and Maintenance Assessment aligns with FY25 total assessment budget. Solid Waste
Services is over ($37) due to yearly payment to Larimer County for sludge removal. Based on historic overages in Solid Waste Services, additional budget should be incorporated in future years for sludge removal. Vehicles
and Supplies cost over ($27), accounting for ~70% of total annual budget. Clothing over ($17), with yearly budget over ($4). Laboratory supplies is over ($9k), with only $2k in annual budget remaining.
Personnel, offset by Assumed Vacancy, under $97 due to FTE vacancy. Consulting Services under $27, which follows historic costs.
Overspend continues to be associated with 2024 Street and Bridge Services, Traffic Control Services, and Sand and Gravel Supplies that hit in Q1 2025. Considering the significant $amount that should have been accrued
back to 2024 overspend expected to continue. Addition of 2025 watermain breaks and associated costs, including overtime and standby pay, was offset by underspend in Fuel by $15, Tools by $30, and Clothing by $4.
4
Wastewater Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 41.7%
May Year to Date
Actual (Under)Budget Actual (Under) Inc/(Dec)Recvd % Act Recvd
Residential WW Sales $ 1,510 * $ 20 $ 7,448 $ 7,555 $ 107 (A)$ 436 42%44%
Com/Indl WW Sales 510 * 32 2,296 2,426 129 (B)181 38%39%
District WW Sales 39 *2 187 196 9 10 44%44%
Other WW Sales 46 * 23 85 161 76 (C)28 54%38%
PILOTs 123 3 595 610 15 38 41%43%
Operating Revenue 2,229 79 10,610 10,948 337 693 41%43%
Interest Revenue 105 (18)614 616 1 79 42%39%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 88 3 181 889 708 (D)494 171%103%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Misc.3 (41)58 67 8 5 57%131%
Total Lapsing Revenue**2,425 24 11,464 12,519 1,055 1,270 44%44%
Non-lapsing Revenue 0 0 0
TOTAL**$ 2,425 $ 12,519 $ 1,270
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)Septage Treatment Charge $75.
(D)
(E)
*
**
April billed revenue is for March and early April.
Note: Wastewater rate increase of 6.0% for 2025, as budgeted.
Residential sales are 1.4% over budget and 6.1% more than YTD 2024.
Commercial/Industrial sales are 5.6% over budget and 8.1% more than YTD 2024.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
Plant Investment Fees $690 (mainly one large PIF in early March).
5
Wastewater Fund 2025 Department Expense
In thousands Percent of Year 41.7%
Excludes depreciation and transfers
May Year to Date
Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD Bdgt Actual
(Over)/
Under YTD (Inc)/Dec
Actual +
PO's
% Bud Spent &
Committed
2025 2025 Bud 2025 2025 2025 Bud 2024 2025 by PO's
Water Reclamation & Biosolids $ 739 $ 43 $ 3,139 $ 2,983 $ 156 (A)$ (355) $ 3,687 46%
Pollution Control Lab 174 (37)532 513 19 (78)621 47%
Subtotal WR&T 913 6 3,671 3,496 175 (433)4,308 46%
Trunk & Collection 231 35 955 895 59 (140)898 36%
Engineering 53 45 338 189 150 (B)(32)250 30%
Subtotal WEFS 283 80 1,293 1,084 209 (173)1,148 34%
PILOTs 123 (3)595 610 (15)(C)(38)610 41%
Admin Services - CS&A 348 (0)1,740 1,740 (0)(455)1,740 42%
Other Payments & Transfers 115 0 714 731 (17)(D)56 733 35%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 1,783 $ 83 $ 8,013 $ 7,661 $ 351 $ (1,042) $ 8,540 42%
Debt Service 150 (150)0 150 (150)(E)$ 38 150 6%
Minor Capital 17 53 676 391 285 (F)$ (279)968 75%
Total Lapsing $ 1,951 $ (14)$ 8,689 $ 8,203 $ 486 $ (1,282) $ 9,658 26%
Non-lapsing Expenses 283 1,011 1,069
TOTAL $ 2,234 $ 9,214 $ (213)
-$ 0
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
Interest payment paid 5/30, budgeted in June due to advisement from Treasury that it would be paid 6/2; flat by June.
Trunk & Collection $220: Mechanical & Heavy Equipment (waiting delivery of F550 crew truck and body, upfitting underway); Water Reclamation & Biosolids: Motor Vehicles and Accessories $61 (using
to offset eventual $75 overage in Building Improvements for electrical at Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR))..
Legal Services ($17) (related to Open International lawsuit, over budget by YE).
spend by YE), Natural Gas $11 (natural gas boilers have not had to run due to milder winter and spring temps), Legal Services $11, and Tools & Related Supplies $10, offset by Personnel ($52) (2
Water Treatment Facility employees' time inadvertently charged here, ~$43 correction pending, and lead operator pay increased with the One Water Operator effort; vacancies on hold), Software
Maintenance & Support ($32) (prepaid software agreements for two years in ICE, will be over if not put on balance sheet), Vehicle Repair Services ($28) (Resource Recovery truck has high mileage and
has had repairs, associated with the mileage, required for safety), and Electrical Parts ($12).
Personnel $68 (vacancy and potentially incorrect labor distributions, investigating) and Consulting Services $60 (DWRF mapping slower than expected due to competing priorities; remainder used as
needed and planning to spend for modeling work).
PILOTs (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) are 6% of operating revenues that are paid to the General Fund. Revenue is over budget thus this expense is as well.
6
Stormwater Fund Revenue
in thousands Percent of Year 41.7%
May Year to Date
Actual (Under)Budget Actual (Under) Inc/(Dec)Recvd % Act Recvd
Single Family Residential SW Services $ 786 * $ 31 $ 3,779 $ 3,923 $ 144 (A)$ 254 43%44%
Non-single Family SW Services 958 * 42 4,574 4,731 157 (B)265 43%44%
Operating Revenue 1,745 73 8,353 8,654 301 520 43%44%
Interest Revenue 153 37 576 920 344 (C)41 67%36%
Development Fees/PIFs/Contributions 55 (19)368 447 79 (D)61 51%43%
Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Misc.2 1 5 7 2 (E)(40) 46%9%
Total Lapsing Revenue**1,954 92 9,302 10,028 726 582 45%43%
Non-lapsing Revenue 0 0 0
TOTAL**$ 1,954 $ 10,028 $ 582
Variance Analysis:
Note: Stormwater rate increase of 6.0% for 2025, as budgeted.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
*
**
April billed revenue is for March and early April.
Stormwater Development Fees $97.
Per Treasury: higher than budgeted income due to being able to take advantage of the higher bond yields the market has been producing.
Non-Single Family fees are 3.4% over budget and are 5.9% greater than 2024.
Single Family Residential fees are 3.8% over budget and are 6.9% greater than 2024.
Excludes transfers and unrealized gain/loss on value.
7
Stormwater Fund 2025 Department Expense
In thousands Percent of Year 41.7%
Excludes depreciation and transfers
May Year to Date
Actual Under Budget Actual (Over)/ Under (Inc)/Dec Actual + PO's & Committed
2025 2025 Bud 2025 2025 2025 Bud 2024 2025 by PO's
Drainage and Detention $ 275 $ 48 $ 1,069 $ 1,012 $ 57 (A)$ (192)$ 1,241 40%
Engineering 220 (9) 776 710 65 (B)(62)799 42%
Stormwater Quality Programs (63)84 122 40 81 (C)126 181 35%
Admin Services - CS&A 400 (0) 2,000 2,000 (0)(466)2,000 42%
Other Payments & Transfers 83 0 458 475 (17)(D)(15)476 28%
Subtotal Operating Expenses $ 913 $ 123 $ 4,423 $ 4,236 $ 187 $ (610)$ 4,697 39%
Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 1,085 0 0%
Minor Capital 35 215 1,188 363 826 (E)(257)1,194 87%
Total Lapsing $ 948 $ 338 $ 5,611 $ 4,599 $ 1,012 $ 218 $ 5,891 36%
Non-lapsing Expenses 504 4,160 (2,939)
TOTAL $ 1,452 $ 8,759 $ (2,721)
Variance Analysis:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Personnel $41, Mowing $29, Street & Bridge Maintenance $16, Sewer Pipe & Accessories $12, offset by Solid Waste Services ($16), Land Maintenance Services ($11), and Leased
Equipment ($10); (estimated calendarization vs actuals and some are reactionary operations).
Drainage & Detention Min Cap $826: Mechanical & Heavy Equipment $805 ($831 encumbered for a camera truck & dump truck (~June delivery), and Motor Vehicles and Accessories
$21 (upfitting delays as vendors are extremely behind).
Consulting $90 (used as needed, typically used for unforeseen engineering analysis, reports, studies), Other Professional & Technical $30 (used as needed, typically used for real estate
staff time development review investigations and appraisals) offset by Personnel ($45) (investigating, appears surveying time charged here and potentially incorrect labor distributions)
Consulting $31 (follow up for the E Coli TMDL monitoring and regular monitoring has shifted to align with the State's seasonal timeframes: payment to begin this summer), Disposal of
Hazardous Material $23 (all $40 of 2025 budget for spill response inadvertently all in January, expenses vary greatly based on spills), and Other Professional & Technical $13 (Poudre
Water Quality Network contract/PO is in progress).
Legal Services ($17) (related to Open International lawsuit, over budget by YE).
8
Utilities
222 Laporte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Memorandum
Date: July 9, 2025
To: Fort Collins Water Commission
From: Katie Collins, Acting Manager, Water Conservation
Subject: 2024 Water Conservation Annual Report
BOTTOM LINE
This memo accompanies the 2024 Water Conservation Annual Report, which highlights
accomplishments and activities that occurred in 2024. In addition to summarizing the report, this
memo provides context on the Water Efficiency Plan (WEP), our approach to tracking
conservation progress, and a preview of current and upcoming priorities for the Water
Conservation team.
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
The current WEP, adopted by City Council in early 2016, serves as the guiding framework for
the Water Utilities’ water conservation efforts. It establishes a goal of reducing water use within
the Utilities’ service area to 130 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2030. The plan identifies
five strategic areas of focus:
• Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities.
• Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency.
• Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building
codes.
• Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies.
• Increase community water literacy.
Staff are preparing to seek Council approval of an updated Water Efficiency Plan in September
2025. The revised plan will move away from a single GPCD target and instead adopt a 4%
system-wide water use reduction goal along with a City-owned landscape resiliency goal. These
updated metrics are intended to more accurately reflect the dynamic impacts of population
growth and climate variability.
2024 GPCD
In 2024, system-wide water use averaged 135 gallons per capita per day (GPCD)—a 15%
increase over 2023. This increase is largely attributed to the unusually wet 2023 irrigation
season, which saw 123% of normal precipitation, which lead to reduced outdoor watering. In
contrast, the 2024 irrigation season returned to conditions more in line with the 10 -year average,
contributing to higher water use. When compared to the five -year average (2018–2022), the
2024 GPCD remains only slightly higher—by approximately one gallon per capita.
While GPCD is a common industry metric, it can be misleading because it doesn’t account for
key variables such as commercial water use patterns, population fluctuations from visitors, and
weather impacts on outdoor use. Additionally, differences in how uti lities measure water—such
as the inclusion of system losses, exclusion of large contractual or raw water users —can
significantly affect GPCD calculations.
2024 WATER SAVINGS
In addition to being responsible stewards of our water resources, Water Conservation is one of
the most cost-effective strategies to increase reliability and reduce the need to acquire
additional costly water supplies. As the cost to acquire and develop water supplies continues to
rise across the state, investing in Water Conservation programs is one of our best tools for
water resource planning and management.
The Water Conservation team delivers a diverse range of programs and services for both
commercial and residential customers, addressing indoor and outdoor water use. Some
initiatives, like education and outreach, provide valuable benefits but are difficult to quantify
water savings. Sixteen programs in the Water Conservation portfolio achieve measurable water
savings. Notably, for things like fixture or landscape installations, water savings typically persist
annually throughout the lifespan of the products . However, current reporting only estimates and
credits these savings in the first year, omitting the continued savings in subsequent years.
Water Conservation programs helped customers save an estimated 1 79.6 million gallons in
2024.
2025 EFFORT S
• Complete and Implement Current Projects
o Water Efficiency Plan Update
o Landscape Amendments in Land Use Code Section 5.10.1
o Water Shortage Action Plan Update
o Growing Water Smart Action Plan in collaboration with Water Resources and
Planning Departments
• Support and Improve Existing Programs and Services including:
o Xeriscape Incentive Program for residential and commercial customers
o Garden in a Box
o Sprinkler Checkups through Resource Central
o Efficient Product Installations and Rebates
o Home Water Reports
o Continuous Consumption notifications
o Irrigation plan review
o Xeriscape Demonstration Garden at City Hall
76 80 100 65 83 51 40 70
10 54
84
66 85 122 90
109
0
50
100
150
200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Annual Estimated Water Savings (MG)
Residential Water Savings Commercial Water Savings
o FoCo EcoFest featuring the Xeriscape Garden Party and Native Plant Swap
o Water-Wise Landscape and Irrigation Professionals
cc: Jill Oropeza, Senior Director, Integrated Water Sciences & Planning
Attachment: 2024 Water Conservation Annual Report
Para más información de este informe de su cualidad de agua potable en español, llame Fort
Collins Utiliites a 970-212-2900, V/TDD 711 o mande preguntas en español a utilities@fcgov.com.
COMMITTED TO QUALITY
Fort Collins Utilities is committed
to delivering high-quality drinking
water. Look inside this report to
learn where your drinking water
comes from, how it compares
to drinking water standards and
about community participation.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community members are welcome to attend Utilities’ Water
Commission meetings, a citizen committee that advises City
Council on matters of policy and budget. Please see the schedule
and location at fcgov.com/cityclerk/boards/water.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
970-212-2900 V/TDD: 711
fcgov.com/water-quality
utilities@fcgov.com
25-27702
WATER QUALITY REPORT
2024
TEST RESULTS
Utilities’ Water Quality Lab
performed 13,834 water
quality analyses on 3,239
samples in 2024. Samples are
collected weekly at various
locations throughout the water
distribution system.
2
WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS AL: Action level -- concentration of
a contaminant, which, if exceeded,
triggers treatment or other
requirements that a water system
must follow
CDPHE: Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment
EPA: United States Environmental
Protection Agency
MCL: Maximum contaminant level
-- highest level of a contaminant
allowed in drinking water; MCLs are
set as close to MCLGs as feasible,
using the best available treatment
technology
MCLG: Maximum contaminant level
goal -- level of a contaminant in
drinking water, below which there is
no known or expected risk to health;
MCLGs allow for a margin of safety
N/A: Not applicable
ND: Non-detect. Analytical sample
where the concentration is deemed
lower than could be detected using
the approved testing method
NTU: Nephelometric turbidity unit
-- measure of particles in the water
or clarity
ppb: Parts of contaminant per billion
parts of water, ug/L
ppm: Parts of contaminant per
million parts of water, mg/L
Ratio: amount of organic carbon
removed/amount of organic carbon
required to be removed
Sanitary Survey: Inspection
performed by CDPHE every three
years to ensure drinking water
facilities are in compliance with
all regulations and to evaluate
the adequacy of the facilities for
producing and distributing safe
drinking water.
Watershed: The land area that
collects, stores, and drains water
into a shared network of streams,
rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
DEFINITIONS
DISINFECTANTS SAMPLED IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMTT Requirement: At least 95% of samples per period (month or quarter) must be at least 0.2 ppm Typical Sources: Water additive used to control microbes.
Disinfectant Name Time Period Results Number of Samples Below Level Sample Size TT Violation MRDL
Chlorine December, 2024 Lowest period percentage of samples meeting TT requirement: 100%0 125 No 4.0 ppm
SECONDARY CONTAMINANTSSecondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin, or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water
Contaminant Name Year Average Range Low – High Sample Size Unit of Measure Secondary Standard
Sodium 2024 3.48 2.76 to 4.12 13 ppm N/A
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS SAMPLED AT THE ENTRY POINT TO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Contaminant
Name
Year Average Range Low
– High
Sample
Size
Unit of
Measure
MCL MCLG MCL
Violation
Typical Sources
Barium 2024 0.02 0.01 to 0.02 4 ppm 2 2 No Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits
Fluoride 2024 0.6 0.54 to 0.71 23 ppm 4 4 No Erosion of natural deposits; water additive which promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories
Nitrate 2024 0.09 ND to 0.18 13 ppm 10 10 No Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of natural deposits
SUMMARY OF TURBIDITY SAMPLED AT THE ENTRY POINT TO THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Contaminant Name Sample Date Level Found TT Requirement TT Violation Typical Sources
Turbidity Date/Month: May Highest single measurement: 0.13 NTU Maximum 1 NTU for any single measurement No Soil Runoff
Turbidity Month: Dec Lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting TT requirement for our technology: 100 %In any month, at least 95% of samples must be less than 0.3 NTU No Soil Runoff
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS PRECURSOR) REMOVAL RATIO OF RAW AND FINISHED WATER
Contaminant Name Year Average Range Low – High Sample Size Unit of Measure TT Minimum Ratio TT Violation Typical Sources
Total Organic Carbon Ratio 2024 1.33 1.12 to 1.47 12 Ratio 1.00 No Naturally present in the environment
*If minimum ratio not met and no violation identified then the system achieved compliance using alternative criteria.
DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS SAMPLED IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Name Year Average Range Low – High Sample Size Unit of Measure MCL MCLG MCL Violation Typical Sources
Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)2024 24.68 12.3 to 42.1 32 ppb 60 N/A No Byproduct of drinking water disinfection
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM)2024 27.32 15.8 to 38.3 32 ppb 80 N/A No Byproduct of drinking water disinfection
Chlorite 2024 0.31 0.21 to 0.4 12 ppm 1.0 .8 No Byproduct of drinking water disinfection
LEAD AND COPPER SAMPLED IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMLead and Copper Individual Sample Results
Contaminant
Name
Time Period Tap Sample
Range Low – High
90th
Percentile
Sample
Size
Unit of
Measure
90th
Percentile AL
Sample Sites
Above AL
90th Percentile
AL Exceedance
Typical Sources
Copper 07/13/2024 to 09/18/2024 0.00618 to 0.249 0.1 55 ppm 1.3 0 No Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits
Lead 07/13/2024 to 09/18/2024 ND - 6.14 2.8 55 ppb 15 0 No Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits
Drinking water, including bottled
water, may reasonably be expected
to contain at least small amounts of
some contaminants. The presence of
contaminants does not necessarily
indicate that the water poses a
health risk. More information about
contaminants and potential health
effects can be obtained by calling the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe
Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791.
As water travels over the land’s surface or
through the ground, it dissolves naturally
occurring minerals and can pick up
substances resulting from the presence of
animals and humans. To ensure tap water
is safe to drink, the CDPHE regulates the
amount of certain contaminants in water
from public water systems. The Food and
Drug Administration regulations establish
limits for contaminants in bottled water
that must provide the same protection
for public health.
TREATING SOURCE WATER SOURCE WATER MAY CONTAIN:
CRYPTOSPORIDIUM AND GIARDIA
Cryptosporidium and Giardia originate from animal and human waste in
the watershed and are commonly found in untreated surface water. When
ingested, the organisms may cause fever, nausea and diarrhea. A well-
maintained water treatment process effectively removes them, ensuring safe
drinking water.
In 2024, Fort Collins Utilities updated its testing approach for detecting
organisms like Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Rather than testing the Poudre
and Horsetooth untreated water separately, they now analyze a combined
blended sample from both sources. Testing in 2024 detected the presence of
Giardia in these combined samples.
For more information about contaminants and potential health risks, call the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791 or visit epa.gov/safewater.
ORGANIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Organic chemical contaminants, including
synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are
byproducts of industrial processes and petroleum
production. These contaminants also may come
from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff and
septic systems.
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals,
which may be naturally occurring or result from
urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic
wastewater discharges, oil and gas production,
mining or farming.
PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from
a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban
stormwater runoff and residential uses.
MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS
Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and
bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment
plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock
operations and wildlife.
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS
Radioactive contaminants, which may be naturally
occurring or the result of oil and gas production
and mining activities.
4fcgov.com/utilities • utilities@fcgov.com • 970-212-2900 • V/TDD: 711
Fort Collins’ drinking water supply comes from two primary surface water sources:
the upper Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) and Horsetooth Reservoir. Poudre
River water originates as rain and snow in the mountains on the eastern slope of the
Continental Divide, northwest of Fort Collins. Horsetooth water is delivered from the
Colorado River Basin on the western slope via the Colorado-Big Thompson Water Project.
SOURCE WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Fort Collins Utilities’ Watershed Program collaborates with regional partners to monitor
water quality trends in the Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir. Monitoring includes
analyses of chemical, physical and biological parameters throughout our source
watersheds.
Utilities manages a source water quality surveillance system in the upper Poudre
watershed to detect and respond to water quality impacts from wildfires, chemical spills,
and reservoir releases. This system, established after the High Park Wildfire in 2013 and
expanded during the Cameron Peak Wildfire in 2020, provides near-real-time water
quality data to municipal water providers, researchers, and other resource management
agencies. By monitoring water quality conditions, Utilities can quickly address
contamination risks before they affect drinking water supplies.
Utilities is also partnering with regional water providers and Colorado State University to
build an advanced source water decision support system. This system will integrate real-
time water quality, satellite imagery, and discrete monitoring data to track source water
quality risks and help treatment plant operators optimize treatment processes. These
efforts help ensure that Fort Collins’ drinking water remains clean and safe. Learn more at
fcgov.com/source-water-monitoring).
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
The City of Fort Collins’ Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) was completed in
2016. The SWPP identifies and prioritizes major pollution threats to the City’s source
watersheds and identifies key protection or mitigation strategies. The threat of large-
scale catastrophic wildfires continues to be the highest priority threat to both source
water supplies and drinking water infrastructure. Historical mines, vehicle related
chemical spills and flooding are moderate priority threats.
To address these threats, Utilities works closely with the Coalition for the Poudre River
Watershed, Colorado State Forest Service, Larimer Conservation District, and other key
watershed stakeholders to improve the health and resiliency of the Poudre River. In 2025, Utilities’ Watershed
Program will lead the development of a collaborative Source Water Protection Plan, which will include the cities of
Fort Collins, Greeley and Thornton, Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority and Northern Water. This regional
effort will improve cost-effectiveness, align source water protection strategies, and support current and future
pollution mitigation projects, including the Poudre Water Supply Infrastructure Wildfire Ready Action Plan (WRAP).
The Colorado Water Conservation Board awarded Utilities a $210,000 grant to develop the Poudre Water Supply
Infrastructure WRAP with the City of Greeley and Water Supply and Storage Company. This collaborative plan will
focus on protecting water supplies and water supply infrastructure, including City-owned Michigan Ditch and Joe
Wright Reservoir, from the threat of wildfire. The WRAP will outline specific projects and actions to safeguard these
resources from post-fire impacts, both before and after a wildfire occurs. Project partners are providing matching
funds for the grant. Plan development is set to begin in early 2025.
MONITORING AND PROTECTING OUR SOURCE WATER
Learn more about our Watershed Program and source water monitoring efforts, including seasonal updates, annual and
five-year reports at fcgov.com/source-water-monitoring.
Joe Wright Reservoir which stores
water that is diverted from the
upper Michigan River Watershed to
the Poudre River Watershed via the
Michigan Ditch.
Utilities’ Watershed Specialist, Diana
Schmidt, collecting water quality
samples from Joe Wright Creek.
5fcgov.com/utilities • utilities@fcgov.com • 970-212-2900 • V/TDD: 711
FLUORIDATION
As directed by City Council and our customers, Utilities adds fluoride to the water, resulting in levels
that range from 0.60 to 0.75 milligrams of fluoride per liter of treated water.
If you or members of your household are sensitive to fluoride or fluoridation-related substances or if
you provide our water to an infant younger than six months of age, please consult your physician or
another health expert regarding precautions you may want to consider.
Visit fcgov.com/water/fluoride.php for more information.
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
Immunocompromised persons, such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who
have undergone organ transplants; people with HIV/AIDS or other immune-system disorders; some
elderly and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about
drinking water from their healthcare providers.
EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and
other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791
LONG-STANDING CORROSION CONTROL
Fort Collins Utilities’ source water has a low
mineral content and is naturally soft because
it comes from snowmelt and rainfall. Without
additional treatment, soft water can be corrosive.
To help prevent corrosion (the leaching of metals)
of water mains, services lines and home plumbing,
Utilities began implementing specific treatment
measures in 1984. These measures continue today.
This additional treatment, which includes adding
calcium and carbon dioxide to the water before
it leaves the treatment plant, helps minimize
corrosion.
As a check to ensure our approach is effective,
and as required by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, Utilities monitors
lead and copper levels in the drinking water of a
minimum of 50 homes every three years. These
tests have shown the levels to be substantially
below EPA’s action level.
If our source water has a low mineral content,
where do the metals come from? If there is lead
present in drinking water, it is primarily from
plumbing leading to or inside a building. Some
plumbing installed after the mid-1980s included
a combination of copper pipes and lead solder. If
this plumbing corrodes or deteriorates, lead can
seep into the water if it sits in the pipes for an
extended period.
While Utilities provides high-quality drinking
water to our customers, we have limited control
regarding the material used in home plumbing.
You share responsibility for protecting yourself
and your family from lead in your home plumbing.
Ways to protect your family include identifying
and removing lead materials within your home
plumbing.
Also, consider flushing your water line first thing
in the morning or after it has been stagnant for six
or more hours. This flushing can include running
the tap, taking a shower, doing laundry or a
load of dishes. Use only cold water for drinking,
cooking, and making baby formula. Boiling water
does not remove lead from water. You can also
use a filter certified by an American National
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce
lead in drinking water.
If you have concerns about your water quality
or questions about water testing, contact the
Water Quality Lab at 970-221-6863 or V/TDD 711.
Any concerns about home plumbing should be
directed to a licensed plumber.
If present, elevated levels of lead can cause
serious health problems, particularly for pregnant
women and young children. For more information,
testing methods and steps to minimize
exposure, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
800-426-4791 or visit epa.gov/lead.
6fcgov.com/utilities • utilities@fcgov.com • 970-212-2900 • V/TDD: 711
WHAT IS SWAP?
Through the Safe Water Action
Program (SWAP), Fort Collins
Utilities has replaced 125 water
service lines to date and plans to
replace another 50 in 2025. The
program will continue for the next
2-3 years to work on replacing
known galvanized lines, as well as
investigating the remaining service
lines that may potentially have
small lead connectors called goosenecks. Fort Collins
Utilities does not have full lead service lines and there
is effectively no lead in the drinking water. However,
to provide the highest level of protection for our
customers, we are proactively working to locate,
remove and replace this small but potential source
of lead material in the water system through this
multi-year program. Water testing results both before
and after lead gooseneck replacement showed
that the presence of lead goosenecks did not have
any detectable effect on lead concentrations in the
drinking water and risk to customers is low.
SERVICE LINE INVENTORY
New state and federal laws require us to inventory all
water service lines in our service area to classify the
material. A service line is the underground pipe that
carries water from the water main, likely in the street,
into your home or building. If you would like to view
a copy of our service line inventory or have questions
about the material of your service line, contact Martin
Shaffer at 970-416-2165.
WE WANT YOU TO KNOW
Fort Collins Utilities received a Tier 3 violation in August of 2024. This
was a reporting error and does not directly impact human health.
The Code of Colorado Regulations requires consumers be notified
within 1 year of occurrence. This did not require customers to use an
alternative source and does not compromise the quality of water we
continue to supply.
Please share this information with all the other people who drink this
water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly
(for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or
distributing copies by hand or mail.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Monitoring of turbidity and chlorine happens multiple times daily,
and the results are submitted to Colorado Dept of Public Health and
Environment monthly. The report is due by the 10th of the following
month. The July 2024 report was submitted on Aug 12, 2024, 2 days
after the deadline. Internal processes were evaluated and improved to
ensure this does not happen again. For questions, please reach out to
Gregg Stonecipher 970-221-6692.
WATER SERVICE LINE
OUTSIDE METER &
SHUT OFF VALVE
INSIDE METER &
SHUT OFF VALVE
GOOSENECK(LESS COMMON)
WATER SERVICE LINE
CURB STOP
CURB BOX
WATER MAIN
Water and wastewater
service line ownership
and responsibility. SAFE WATER
ACTION PROGRAM
Drinking Water Quality Policy
2024 Annual Report
Overview
The City of Fort Collins strives to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to produce
some of the best and most reliable water in the country. Serving more than 175,000 customers,
Fort Collins Utilities works diligently to uphold exceptional water quality, while navigating several
challenges affecting the watershed, our two raw water sources, the treatment process, and
other aspects of the system.
With help from two unique raw water sources, the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility
(FCWTF) can provide high-quality water 24/7/365. In 2024, we provided 8.5 billion gallons of
potable water to the public. With some fire-related ailments impacting the Cache la Poudre
River, and other climate change related conditions, there is much to do to ensure that water
moves through the system as best as possible.
The Cache la Poudre River
While many potential impacts can exist during treatment, FCWTF staff work diligently to benefit
the environment and incorporate the most sustainable and energy efficient water treatment
practices available.
Beyond treatment, our distribution crews work around the clock to ensure our waterlines
continue to deliver water to our customers.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 2
Source: Watershed protection and source monitoring
Turbidity is the way we measure water clarity. The lower the turbidity, the clearer the water
looks. The higher the turbidity, the murkier it is.
The figures below highlight the FCWTF threshold for high turbidity water on the Poudre River.
Operations does not accept water into the pipeline if turbidities exceed 100 Nephelometric
Turbidity Unit (NTU). Following the Cameron Peak Fire in 2020, there were more turbidity
events, however they have slowed following several spring runoff seasons.
Figure 1 – This graph shows Poudre River turbidity throughout spring runoff and summer conditions.
Our watershed team gathers a complete analysis of the river, highlighting the different
characteristics of the water before it flows into the City’s Poudre Raw Water Intake. These
indicators help determine overall treatment processes needed to ensure the water is safe to
drink.
The Upper Poudre Watershed monitoring network includes 18 sampling locations. These
locations help characterize the headwaters, major tributaries, and downstream locations of the
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 3
Upper Poudre River. Locations also exist near the intakes for the City, Soldier Canyon Water
Treatment Authority, and City of Greeley’s treatment systems.
Nitrogen and phosphorus (nutrients) are important parameters to monitor when evaluating
source water quality. In high concentrations and under certain environmental conditions,
nutrients can lead to algal blooms. Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae blooms, can produce
cyanotoxins, taste and odor compounds. Elevated nitrate concentrations at the City’s Poudre
Raw Water Intake persisted nearly six years following the High Park Fire in 2012 before
approaching pre-fire conditions. Following the Cameron Peak Fire, nitrate concentrations within
and below the burn scar followed a similar trend but began decreasing notably in 2024. High
elevation reservoirs can act as a buffer between the severely burned hillslopes and the
mainstem of the Poudre River, which might have delayed the timing of the post-fire nutrient
response. While nutrient concentrations may continue to decrease in coming years in
downstream areas of the mainstem, areas directly below high-elevation reservoirs may see
higher concentrations for a longer time.
Figure 2 – This graph shows the nutrient content of the Poudre River after both the High Park Fire (2012)
and the Cameron Peak Fire (2020) damaged surface soils in the Poudre Watershed.
Treatment: Optimization efforts to ensure great water
With more water demand that comes from an increasing customer base, our process affects
more people. Therefore, treatment quality becomes more important and more complex. The City
also faces water quality challenges before treatment that place additional pressures on the
process. Each year highlights differences depending on how much precipitation took place,
drought conditions, and community needs.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 4
Figure 3 – This graph shows annual FCWTF totalized production flows. More rain fell in 2023 compared
to other years shown here, lowering customer demand.
Figure 4 – This graph shows annual production flows by month with a characteristically predictable swing
in demand in the spring and summer months.
Over time, it appears that annual production is slowly seeing increases, which is primarily
indicative of more customers in the service area. However, Utilities’ service area is surrounded
by the Tri-Districts Water System (Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, East Larimer County,
and North Weld County Water District) in addition to other providers, as seen below in Figure 5.
The Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority supplies the Tri-Districts. Utilities’ future will
include possible water sharing amongst the surrounding districts, as Northern Colorado faces
increasing water needs over the four districts. The location of the FCWD will decrease pressure
0
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
9,000,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Annual Production
0
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Water Production By Month (2019-2024)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 5
from growth, which may call for increased usage of interconnections to help fulfill the needs of
the other districts. This is becoming increasingly more apparent with the need for additional
treatment capacity within the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD). Before the Cobb
Lake Regional Water Treatment Authority is complete, anticipated to be operational in 2030,
there is a need for Utilities to take on additional treatment demand in the coming years.
Figure 5 – Utilities water service area, in light blue, and surrounding water provider boundaries.
Treatment Indicators
The FCWTF has a rated capacity of 87 million gallons per day (MPG), which is much higher
than what it treats on an annual basis. This buffer allows for more production, which is crucial in
approaching future demand requirements as well as the Tri-Districts. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) stipulates under the Clean Water Act that treatment plants must have
plans for capacity increases when treatment capacity reaches 80%. Current production for the
FCWTF (at its highest daily production), has only reached around 56%, allowing for the gradual
demand increases.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 6
Understanding Maximums
Annual production maximums help staff identify where things stand amongst the regulatory
expectation for capacity increases and helps comprehensively plan for the future.
Figure 6 – This graph shows annual daily maximum production values for FCWTF from 2019-2024.
Raw Water Usage
As shown below in Figure 6, averages taken from 2019-2024 show what raw water sources the
FCWTF relies on for treatment, with a larger portion of water coming from Horsetooth Reservoir
in most cases. How much water is used from which source is determined by what is legally
allowed and water quality restraints. The decree requirements for Horsetooth are set for each
month of the year, with the remaining flow supplemented by Poudre River treatment. The
amount of river water utilized is also dependent on water quality conditions, which are much
more variable during spring and summer. Operations can rely on blending water from both
sources to optimize the process in ways that maximize sedimentation, filtration, and chemical
usage. Optimization is key in lowering treatment cost, overall efficiency in running the plant, as
well as maintaining a more positive impact on the environment.
35000000
37500000
40000000
42500000
45000000
47500000
50000000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
Annual Production Maximums
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 7
Figure 7 – This graph shows how much water comes from the Poudre River, Horsetooth Reservoir (HT)
and the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP).
Turbidity Removal
Turbidity removal is one of the most important aspects of the treatment process, which again
highlights the importance of more than one raw water source. Horsetooth Reservoir maintains
stability in its overall water quality throughout the year, with the most variability in the Poudre
River. Seasonal variability and heavy rainfall on the burn scar cause turbidity increases,
ultimately affecting how we treat the water. Despite nearly five spring runoff seasons since the
Cameron Peak Fire, there is still some expectation for turbidity during heavy rainfall.
As a result, turbidity entering the plant coincides with seasonal variations on the Poudre River.
The first line of defense comes from the pre-sedimentation process up at the Poudre Intake, but
we remove most of the turbidity during the flocculation and sedimentation phase. During times
of higher turbidity, it is more likely that the FCWTF will be operating on all four treatment trains,
which allow for greater flows and helps manage elevated turbidity levels.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 8
Figure 8 – This graph shows the average monthly turbidity averages, highlighting challenges from runoff.
Figure 9 – This graph shows the average turbidity entering the treatment trains (sedimentation basin)
from the blended raw water sources.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Monthly Average Raw Water Turbidity
Poudre Horsetooth
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
January February March April May June August September October November December
NT
U
Turbidity To Trains 2019-2024
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 9
Figure 10 – This graph shows the percent removal of turbidity through the treatment trains (sedimentation
basin) from the blended raw water sources.
Each filter sees a daily loading rate of 3.00 MGD, which is the most optimal loading rate
discovered through a series of trials by our operations group. That loading rate allows us to
manage turbidity levels according to best practices. This encompasses all seasonal variability
and promotes the longest filter runs throughout the year. Filter optimization is vital to overall
plant performance, going above and beyond regulatory compliance, and achieving other
environmental management system goals. This performance also enhances overall results tied
to the FCWTF participation in the Partnership for Safe Water. The facility is currently working
toward attaining level IV partnership, which is the highest level of recognition with the program.
To achieve this goal, optimization with both treatment trains and filters is required.
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
Ma
r
c
h
Ap
r
i
l
Ma
y
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
% Turbidity Removal Through Trains 2019-2024
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 10
Figure 11 – This graph shows the average turbidity entering the filters after the treatment trains.
All filters have the capability to remove around 90-95% of remaining turbidity post
sedimentation. This allows the FCWTF to go above and beyond compliance requirements
stipulated by the State of Colorado’s Regulation 11 and the requirement for appropriate
individual filter and combined filter effluent (IFE/CFE) turbidities. The work done prior to the CFE
allows operations to continue treatment during extenuating circumstances. For example, the
operators spent three months from December 2024 and into 2025 with the clearwell bypass in
effect to address a leak coming from within the plant. This was a major change in normal
operations, but plant optimization continued during these months.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
January February March April May June August September October November December
NT
U
Turbidity to the Filters 2019-2024
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 11
Figure 12 – This graph shows the percentage of turbidity removed in water flowing through the filters.
Overall, our turbidity management sees continued success through adversity throughout the
year. Participation in the Partnership for Safe Water helps instill an operational culture that
accepts a greater responsibility to optimizing the process. These efforts stem from work done at
the beginning of the process to the end. The holistic approach to optimization brings greater
efficiencies in treatment that address chemical usage, turbidity management, energy efficiency,
and overall process waste.
60.00%
65.00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
January March April May June July August October November December
Percent Turbidity Removal Through Filters
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 12
Figure 13 – The limit, shown in yellow, reflects FCWTF goals in relation to Partnership for Safe Water
requirements.
2014-
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
average
turbidity
value (NTU)
0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02
95% of all
turbidities
less than or
equal to
(NTU)
0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03
Annual
maximum
turbidity
value (NTU)
0.15 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.20 0.21
Number of
turbidities
greater than
0.10 NTU
1 0 1 1 0 4 0 8 10 12
Figure 14 – Summary of Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity Data from 2014-15 to 2023-24 reporting
periods.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Monthly Average Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity
Combined Filter Effluent Upper CFE Limit (Partnership for Safe Water)
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 13
Water Quality Lab
In 2024, the City’s Water Quality Lab received 25 drinking water quality complaints, equating to
a rate of 0.19 per 1,000 customers. This decreased 44% from 2023 and remains well under
benchmark goals.
Complaints related to sensory perceptions of water quality were significantly reduced in 2024.
This may be due to a new process where staff prioritize customer complaints and determine if
the report is a normal condition with no risk to human health or if it needs to be escalated. The
number of complaints or inquiries about lead or health issues remained about the same as in
2023. We believe this indicates that the new complaint process is doing a better job of getting
the appropriate complaints to the Water Quality Lab.
Based on the 2024 Benchmarking Manual from the American Water Works Association
(AWWA), 38 participating combined utilities had a median number of technical water complaints
of 2.2 per 1,000 customers. The best quartile rate observed by other participating utilities was
1.0 per 1,000 customers. At 0.19 per 1,000 customers, the City was better than the best.
Additionally, this measure can be calculated as complaints per 1,000 accounts. Using this
method, the City had a rate of 0.69 per 1,000 accounts. Based on the same manual, the
participating combined utilities had a median number of technical water complaints of 7.2 per
1,000 customer accounts. The best quartile rate observed by other participating utilities was 3.8
per 1,000. At 0.69 per 1,000, again the City was better than the best.
0BComplaint Type 1BNumber of Complaints
2BColor 3B3
4BIllness or Health 5B3
6BLead 7B17
8BTaste or Odor 9B2
Figure 15 – Summary of each category of water quality complaints by customers.
Certified Laboratory
The City is required to comply with state and federal drinking water standards. These standards
require a certified laboratory to perform all regulatory compliance testing. Our Water Quality
Laboratory staff provides state-certified regulatory compliance and other testing and reporting
for Utilities as well as 13 other regional water agencies.
The Water Quality Lab first achieved certification in bacteriology testing in 1978. Since that time,
the lab has gained certified status for a large array of water quality tests. Certified status is
achieved through a multistep process shown below.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 14
Figure 26 – The Water Quality Lab gains its certification status through a rigorous application process that
includes robust sample evaluation and biennial audits.
The Water Quality Services Division completed a master plan in 2017, which included a
condition assessment of the Water Quality Lab and evaluated different alternatives for
renovation or replacement. They updated the master plan in 2023. The City is also pursuing
opportunities for constructing a new One Water laboratory.
Efficiency
• The FCWTF strives for efficiency and continues to stay below the AWWA benchmark
on energy usage per million gallons. Optimizing the process also helps ensure that
higher energy intensive processes are performed less frequently.
• The facility operates under the ISO14001 certification. This voluntary standard
requires the facility to adhere to guidelines that include enhancement of
environmental performance, fulfillment of compliance obligations, and achievement of
environmental objectives.
• Onsite renewable sources supplied 24% of the FCWTF’s energy demand in 2024.
Both onsite solar panels and the Horsetooth MicroHydro generate power.
CERTIFIED STATUS
Application
The application process includes documentation regarding the qualifications of lab staff, training, equipment, quality assurance documentation, facilities and budget, as well as proof of successful analysis of “unknown" performance audit samples each year.
Performance Evaluation Samples
This involves the analysis of samples from certified providers that contain unknown quantities of unknown constituents.This rigorous approach covers an array of parameters and weeds out possible reporting of false positive and false negative results.
Audits
Our certification body, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, performs biennial audits of the laboratory. This involves evaluating lab staff, including review and verification of their formal educational qualifications, lab training and lab-related work experience, as well as hands-on demonstration of skills.In addition, details of written and actual test methods and procedures are audited to ensure “to-the-letter” compliance with required EPA specifications. Certification inspections also include review of the lab’s budget, equipment, facilities and work processes.
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 15
Figure 37 – This graph displays overall energy efficiency in relation to the 2017 AWWA benchmark.
Customer water use patterns change in the spring and the fall, which equates to increased and
decreased demand, respectively. Summer outdoor water season contributes to higher water
use. There is economy of scale with producing more water as it uses less energy per unit
(million gallons).
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
kB
T
U
/M
G
Treatment Energy Efficiency (kBTU per Million Gallons)
Total Energy Efficiency Purchased Energy Efficiency
(non-renewables)
Benchmark
(4,427 kBTU/MG)
2024 Total Energy Average 2024 Purchased Energy
(non-renewables) Average
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 16
Figure 48 – This figure breaks down how much energy is generated by onsite with renewable energy
technologies and the monthly usage from the grid.
Figure 19 – This graph denotes the annual percentages of grid electricity amongst renewable energy
sources.
8,382 11,421 12,816 13,835 16,533 15,448 16,168 14,888 14,841 12,276 9,464 8,793
44,313 37,260 48,688 47,647 54,067 52,884 53,851 49,845 46,391 46,151 42,941 47,677
283,835
246,801
249,464 241,822
256,020 251,212 263,059
250,153
231,412 226,067 227,665
249,510
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
kW
h
Energy from On-Site Renewable Generation
Solar (kWh)MicroHydro (kWh)Total Electrical Energy Consumed
76%
5%
19%
Percent Renewables
Grid (%)Solar (%)Microhydro (%)
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 17
Distribution
Utilities’ distribution team works 24/7 to ensure high-quality drinking water is delivered to all
customers. It’s an important final step in providing safe drinking water. The following trends
highlight the repair and maintenance work our staff does to help protect this community
resource. These numbers are not consistent year-to-year or month-to-month and depend on
many factors.
Some required maintenance on water lines takes place after hours. Our crews are also on call
around the clock and get to work as soon as an issue is reported. These charts show only part
of the immense amount of work distribution crews contribute to maintaining water quality for
customers.
Figure 20 – This figure highlights the number of customer service calls made during both regular hours
and after hours.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Customer Service Calls
After Hours Regular Hours
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 18
Figure 21 – This figure highlights the number of annual main breaks experienced in the City’s distribution
system.
Figure 22 – This figure highlights the number of fire hydrants repaired from 2012-2024.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Annual Main Breaks
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Number of Fire Hydrants Repaired
Drinking Water Quality Policy 2024 Annual Report June 2025 | 19
Figure 23 – This figure highlights the miles of water main surveyed annually, from 2012-2024.
Figure 24 – This figure highlights the total feet of water main replaced each year from 2012-2024.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Miles of Water Main Surveyed for Leaks
Miles
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Feet of Water Main Replaced
Feet
The EPA'S new LEAD
AND COPPER rule includes
new improvements, which went into
e ect in October 2024.
Water Quality Lab sta provide state-certified REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
TESTING AND REPORTING for Utilities and 10 other regional water agencies.
With continued health advisories
administered by the EPA, Utilities
monitored source and treated water
and detected no PFAS.
8.5B GALLONS
PRODUCED
OF DRINKING WATER.
Fire Hydrants
120.25
Available treated water storage would
meet 22.7 hours of peak demand,
exceeding the benchmark of storage
capacity for 12 hours of peak demand.
Utilities received 0.19 water quality
complaints per 1,000 customers. Studies by
the the American Water Works Association,
show a median of technical water complaints
of 2.2 per 1,000 customers.
25-28077
Plant energy e ciency was less than
the American Water Works Association
energy benchmark.
24% of the plant’s electrical demand was
met by on-site renewable solar and
hydroelectric generation.
ADEQUATELY MAINTAINING OUR ASSETS ENSURES RELIABLE SERVICE.
931
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
during regular hours
AND 74
after hours.
MILES OF WATER DISTRIBUTION PIPES CHECKED FOR LEAKS
PEAK DAY
PRODUCTION WAS
50M GALLONS
57%
Capacity 87M
1,350
Valves
REPLACED4,353
354
Cathodic
Protection
Test
Station
Readings
REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED
OPERATED AND MAINTAINED
EV
A
L
U
A
T
E
D
59
Valves
96% of maintenance work orders were planned preventative
maintenance, with a target of greater than 80%.
Feet of Pipe
Performed 22,169 laboratory
analyses for process control.
INSTALLED
95 WATER MAIN BREAKS REPAIRED
Fire Hydrants
1 8
SOURCE WATERPROTECTION PLAN IN PLACE
In 2023, the State of Colorado 401 water quality
certification process began (the main water quality
permitting e ort) for the Halligan Water Supply Project.
Despite the impacts of fires in 2020, water quality
conditions in the Cache la Poudre River have
continued to improve. Large scale wildfires remain
the biggest threat to the City’s water supplies.
2024 update on activities and results related to the Fort Collins Utilities Drinking Water Quality Policy.
THE DRINKING WATERQUALITY POLICY
Adopted in October 1993 to ensure
continuous delivery of high-quality
drinking water to customers.
HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Since 2008, the Utilities’ Watershed Program has led the collaborative
upper Cache la Poudre Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Monitoring includes sampling between the Mainstem
Cache La Poudre River watershed and the North Fork CLP
watershed. These watersheds encompass about 645,500
acres of forest and other land types.
The monitoring network consists of 18 sample
locations across both the Mainstem CLP and
North Fork CLP to characterize the watersheds.
REPAIRS:
88 SERVICES LINES
32 SERVICE LINE LEAKS
5 2 8
The treatment facility and distribution system operators are certified
by the Colorado Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification
Board as CERTIFIED WATER PROFESSIONALS.
The Water Treatment Facility maintains certification under the ISO 14001 Standard.
The Water Treatment Facility maintained gold level status
with the Colorado Green Business Network.
Our water treatment facility is ONE OF ONLY 45 throughout the nation to achieve this level of recognition.
The distribution system kept its DIRECTOR’S AWARD status for the seventh year in a row.
The Water Treatment Facility maintained it’s
PRESIDENT’S AWARD for the ninth year in a row.
2
0
2
4
DRINKING WATER QUALITY POLICY UPDATE
OPEN HERE
Headline Copy Goes Here
Director, Plant Operations
Christina Schroeder
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Blower Replacement
July 17, 2025
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Overview
Background
•Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF)
•North Process Train (NPT)
•Secondary Treatment Aeration from Blowers
•Timeline of NPT Blowers
Recommendation
•Replace two turbo blowers this year
•Mid-cycle appropriation of $1,700,000 from
wastewater reserves
Financial Impacts
The wastewater reserves fund has a
sufficient balance with approximately
$8,200,000 available.
Suggested Motion
I move that Water Commission recommends
City Council approve a mid-cycle appropriation
of $1,700,000 from wastewater reserves for
North Process Train Blower replacement.
Headline Copy Goes HereDrake Water Reclamation Facility – Aeration Basin
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
NPT Secondary Treatment with Aeration
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
•NPT Blower outage
•Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
•Temporary NPT Blower outage
•Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Limited to three (3) out
of the four (4) blowers
required by the State of
Colorado Water Quality
Control Division
for the
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
NPT Blower Timeline
2011
to
Today
Today
Year
End
2025
2011:
•Two Turbo Blowers installed
•Two centrifugal blowers remained in
service
•Four total NPT blowers
October 2024:
•Temporary NPT Blower outage
•Manufacturer no longer supports
equipment
•Unable to make repairs
April 29, 2025:
•Blower inoperative and formally taken
out of service
Limited to three (3) out
of the four (4) blowers
required by the State of
Colorado Water Quality
Control Division
for the
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
North Process Train
Project Schedule
December 2024 – June 2025:
•Project Initiation COMPLETE
•Replacement Evaluation COMPLETE
•Conceptual Design COMPLETE
•60 Percent Design COMPLETE
July:
•Construction Contractor Request for
Proposals – in progress
August:
•Presentation to Council
September:
•Equipment Procurement with a
minimum five week lead time
By year end 2025:
•Four (4) NPT Blowers in Operation
Headline Copy Goes HereFinancial Impact
8
•Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost = $2,350,000
•Project Initiated with WRB Replacement Program Funds = $650,000
•Requesting mid-cycle appropriation of $1,700,000 from wastewater reserves
Item Replacement
Program
Mid-Cycle
Appropriation
Budget
Design $150,000 $150,000
Construction $100,000 $1,700,000 $1,800,000
Contingency $400,000 $400,000
Total $650,000 $1,700,000 $2,350,000
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Suggested Motion
I move that Water Commission recommends City Council approve a
mid-cycle appropriation of $1,700,000 from wastewater reserves for
North Process Train Blower replacement.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Questions?
10
Headline Copy Goes Here
Andrew Gingerich
Director, Water Field
Operations
Lemay Ave 20"
Transmission Main
Emergency
Replacement
July 17, 2025
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Overview
Background
•20" Water Transmission Main
•Lemay Ave b/t Harbor Walk & Breakwater
•7 Recent Leaks and 9 Total
Recommendation
•Replace 2,800 L.F. of Waterline
•Mid-cycle appropriation of $3,400,000 from
Water Reserves
Financial Impacts
The Water Reserves fund has a
sufficient balance with approximately
$26,135,000 available.
Suggested Motion
I move that Water Commission recommends City
Council approve a mid -cycle appropriation of
$3,400,000 from Water Reserves for Lemay Ave 20"
Water Transmission Main Emergency Replacement
Headline Copy Goes HereBackground
3
-7 Main Leaks Occurred between 4/22/25 & 6/18/25
-Records show 9 Total Leaks b/t Harbor Walk & Breakwater
-Each leak requires full closure of Lemay Ave for 18 – 24 Hours
-Repair costs estimated between $120,000 - $150,000
-Leak repair doesn't affect individual services but creates
vulnerability
Headline Copy Goes HereRecommendation – Emergency Replacement
4
- Existing main is 1979 Ductile Iron Pipe direct buried w/out plastic wrap
-All 9 Failures have been electrolysis holes on top of pipe
-1979 vintage pipe exists from Harbor Walk to Harmony Road (~2,800 L.F.)
-1985 vintage pipe N. of Harbor Walk plastic wrap & no known leaks
-Recommend replacing the entire 2,800 L.F. of existing Ductile Iron Pipe with
new Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC).
-Design will determine the exact sizing and location within Lemay Ave which
can hopefully lower cost estimates.
Headline Copy Goes HereFinancial Impact
5
•Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost = $3,400,000
•Project Initiated with Replacement Program Funds = $0
•Requesting mid-cycle appropriation of $3,400,000 from Water
Reserves
Item Replacement
Program
Mid-Cycle
Appropriation
Budget
Design $0 $0
Construction $0 $2,750,000 $2,750,000
Contingency $0 $650,000 $650,000
Total $0 $3,400,000 $3,400,000
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Suggested Motion
I move that Water Commission recommends City Council approve a
mid-cycle appropriation of $3,400,000 from water reserves for
Lemay Ave 20" Water Transmission Main Emergency Replacement.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Questions?
7
Utilities
222 Laporte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
aconovitz@fcgov.com
CC: Katie Collins
Memorandum
Date: July 9, 2025
To: Water Commissioners
Through: Jill Oropeza, Sr. Director, Integrated Water Sciences & Planning
From: Alice Conovitz, Water Conservation Specialist
Subject: 2025 Fort Collins Utilities Water Efficiency Plan: Summary of Final Comments and
Planned Changes
BOTTOM LINE
This memorandum outlines the changes that will be incorporated into the final Water Efficiency
Plan (WEP) as a result of feedback received on the draft WEP from community members, the
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), and City of Fort Collins Boards and
Commissions. Staff will seek City Council approval of the final WEP at the Sept. 2, 2025
meeting.
As the WEP is intended to be a high-level, goal-setting framework for water efficiency efforts,
some feedback, while valuable, is more appropriately addressed during the implementation
phase, following WEP approval.
Staff provided the draft WEP to Water Commission in the June 5, 2025 meeting materials. It can
also be viewed online at ourcity.fcgov.com/wep.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND PLANNED RESPONSES
Fort Collins Utilities (Water Utilities) conducted an extensive public engagement process as part
of preparing the draft WEP (described in the document in Section 3.5 and Appendix B). Public
comments on the draft WEP were received from April 23 to June 23, 2025. During this time, the
draft WEP was posted online and community members could submit comments via an online
form or through direct email to staff. Although the draft was prepared in English only, translation
via Google Translate was available for most sections, and the online comment form was offered
in both English and Spanish. Community members could also request a mailed printed version
of the draft WEP and comment form. Staff promoted the public comment period through a
Utilities bill insert, social media, emails, newsletters, websites, and public events.
Staff received eight online forms and one direct email during the public comment period. They
are summarized as follows:
Goals
• Understandable: 3 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 0 No
• Reflect community values: 3.7 (out of 5)
• Appropriate for our community: 2 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 1 No
• Applicable to my life: 2 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 1 No
• Ambitious: 4 Yes, 3 Somewhat, 0 No
Strategies
• Understandable: 3 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 0 No
• Applicable to my life: 3 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 0 No
• Target right uses: 4 Yes, 3 Somewhat, 0 No
• Appropriate for our community: 3 Yes, 4 Somewhat, 0 No
• Adequately support customers: 2 Yes, 3 Somewhat, 2 No
Write-in comments generally aligned with the feedback received during WEP engagement. No
changes to the WEP document are planned in response to the comments received.
CWCB COMMENTS AND PLANNED RESPONSES
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the state’s approving agency for WEPs.
CWCB staff completed an initial red flag review of the draft WEP and found that “it appears to
meet the required criteria.” CWCB requested staff include a more detailed discussion of the
climate change scenarios used in the WEP to evaluate potential future water demands and
savings potential for efficiency strategies.
To address the CWCB comments, staff plan to prepare a detailed climate assessment
memorandum to be provided to CWCB separate from the WEP. Additionally, staff prepared the
following draft text and summary figures intended to be incorporated into WEP Section 1.3.1:
Colorado Climate Center researchers provided a customized analysis of
localized future maximum temperature and precipitation projections for Fort
Collins. This analysis used Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6
(CMIP60F1) climate datasets that were statistically downscaled using the Localized
Constructed Analogs (LOCA)1F2 method, which yields an ensemble of modeled
climate projections at a localized geographic scale suitable for hydrologic
modeling. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathway scenario SSP2-4.52F3, informally
1 CMIP6, coordinated by the World Climate Research Programme, is the most current set of global
climate model data produced using numerous climate models within an integrated framework. Additional
information is available at pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6.
2LOCA version 2 datasets provide CMIP6 climate model projections over a 6-kilometer grid scale.
Additional information is at loca.ucsd.edu. Dr. David Pierce at the University of California San Diego
Scripps Institution of Oceanography led the development of this open-source dataset, which is available
for download at https://cirrus.ucsd.edu/~pierce/LOCA2/CONUS_regions_split/.
3 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway scenario describes the future scenarios of human societal
developments used in climate modeling. The SSP2-4.5 pathway is a scenario in which the current
patterns of social, economic, and technological trends are similar to historical patterns.
referred to as the “middle-of-the-road" scenario, was used for the Fort Collins
analysis.
The Colorado Climate Center analysis produced monthly maximum temperature
and total precipitation outputs for 1991 – 2100. The 1991 – 2014 period is a
subset of the historical climate simulations from the CMIP6-LOCA dataset, and
the 2015 – 2100 period uses future climate projections under the SSP2-4.5
scenario. Data were statistically processed to generate a mean and range of
projections for each month in this time period. The range was defined by the
mean of model predictions plus/minus one standard deviation. Figure 4 (upper
plot) presents the range of predicted temperatures for 2040, as well as the
average for the 30-year period from 1991 – 2020, which was used as the Water
Efficiency Tool (WET) water demand model baseline. The lower plot in Figure 4
presents the same information for total monthly precipitation.
As shown in the figures, climate model projections for the Fort Collins area
indicate that, by 2040, monthly maximum temperatures will generally be warmer
relative to the 30-year period from 1991 – 2020. Climate model predictions for
monthly precipitation vary, suggesting that it is difficult to predict whether the
future amount of precipitation in Fort Collins is likely to be higher, lower, or similar
to the 1991 – 2020 period.
Staff used the Colorado Climate Center’s projections to generate monthly
temperature and precipitation inputs to model water demand and efficiency
strategy savings for this WEP.
Figure 1. Predicted monthly maximum temperature and monthly precipitation for Fort Collins, relative to 1991 – 2020.
Monthly Maximum Temperature -Observed and Predicted
BOARD AND COMMISSION COMMENTS AND PLANNED RESPONSES
Water Utilities staff sought feedback on the draft WEP from the following City of Fort Collins
Boards and Commissions:
• Natural Resources Advisory Board – On June 26, 2024, staff presented an overview of
the WEP and led an engagement activity to seek input on water efficiency strategies as
they pertain to urban tree health/benefits and raw water irrigation. On May 21, 2025,
staff presented an overview of the WEP draft that was available during the public
comment period and solicited final input from Board members. The Natural Resources
Advisory Board provided a letter of support for the WEP update to City Council on June
18, 2025.
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Board – On May 28, 2025, staff presented an overview
of the WEP draft that was available during the public comment period and solicited final
input from Board members. They provided specific comments, which staff addressed
through revisions to the WEP text and a comment response memorandum dated June
23, 2025. Staff returned to address questions at the June 25, 2025 meeting. The Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board drafted a letter of support for the WEP update that they
will review at their July 23, 2025, meeting.
• Planning and Zoning Commission – On May 9 and May 15, 2025, staff presented an
overview of the WEP draft that was available during the public comment period and
solicited final input from Commissioners. They unanimously-approved a motion to
support the WEP at their May 15, 2025 hearing.
Monthly Precipitation -Observed and Predicted
• Water Commission – Staff met with Water Commission on April 6, 2023, and May 18,
2023, to seek early input on efficiency strategies to consider for evaluation during the
WEP update. Staff met with the Water Commission again on March 20, 2025, and June
5, 2025, to provide an update and seek feedback on proposed goals and strategies.
Staff will seek support for the final WEP at Water Commission’s July 17, 2025 meeting.
The remainder of this section summarizes comments from boards and commissions on the
draft WEP, and planned responses. The comments shown here drove planned WEP
revisions and/or are representative of repeated themes.
WEP Goals
Comment: Provide additional information about how the 4% goal was chosen.
Comment: Explain mechanisms used to achieve goals.
Response: Staff will add new text to WEP Section 3.1 (Water Efficiency Goals) to summarize
the goal-setting process. The following is a draft of the new text:
Goal 1 was set based on a “top-down” analysis of expected demand increase
paired with a “bottom-up” analysis of feasible savings: Staff estimated future
water demand increases based on a range of growth and climate conditions (“top
down”), then set a reduction goal based on (1) outperforming historical Water
Conservation Division program savings of approximately 2% each year, paired
with (2) analysis of cumulative potential water savings from efficiency strategies
described in Section 4 of this WEP (“bottom up”).
The volume of savings associated with the 4% reduction in Goal 1 is determined
based on projected demands for Water Utilities’ customers under a range of
future growth and climate scenarios. Because demands vary year-to-year, for a
specific percent reduction target (i.e., 4%) the volume (millions of gallons) of
savings would go up or down based on variability in consumption. Staff estimate
that a 4% reduction in 2040 demand is estimated to require 280 – 355 million
gallons (860 – 1,090 acre-feet) of efficiency savings which reflects the range of
estimated 2040 demands driven by different climate and growth scenarios. This
level of savings would be an increase of more than two times over average
measured Water Conservation Division savings from 2020 – 2024. To gradually
progress to the final 2040 goal, interim annual targets will be tracked from 2030 –
2040.
Goal 2 was set based on collaborative discussions across City departments and
alignment with the two-year municipal budgeting cycle, with the intent to average
one new landscape resilience project with each two-year cycle.
Efficiency Strategies
Comment: One survey theme was that it’s critical to engage home owners associations
(HOAs), landscaping professionals, and realtors; Utilities should explore more strategies
targeted at these groups.
Response: The Water Utilities currently offer a wide range of water efficiency programs,
including a subset that serve non-residential customers with large landscapes, like HOAs.
The WEP outlines the following existing and proposed large landscape strategies:
• Xeriscape Incentive Program rebates for commercial customers
• HOA and commercial irrigation assessments
• Irrigation equipment rebates
• Programs that support landscape and irrigation contractors who serve HOAs and other
large landscapes, such as the Waterwise Professionals Network
• Proposed strategy: Wrap-around support for water efficiency in community green spaces
or HOAs and large turf areas. This is envisioned as a stepwise program that offers
irrigation education, irrigation equipment upgrades (e.g., smart controllers), turf
conversions, and ongoing maintenance.
Based on a keyword analysis, we estimate there are approximately 250 HOAs in Water
Utilities’ service area and about 325 water taps that serve their common areas or facilities.
Those taps use about 240 million gallons of water annually, which is approximately 4% of all
treated water use within the service area. While staff agree that expanding water efficiency
strategies related to HOAs and other large landscapes is important, due to the amount of
water used and current level of support from public engagement, no changes to the WEP
document are planned in response to these comments, as this level of detail is inconsistent
with staff’s intention for the WEP to be a high-level framework. Rather, staff will prepare or
update detailed program plans for the efficiency strategies identified for implementation
following City Council’s approval of the WEP. Staff will prioritize addressing relevant data
gaps that could significantly advance implementation. For example, staff have already
identified updated landcover data and analyses as a valuable need.
Comment: Projects for turf-to-xeric conversions on City-owned property should be designed
to maximize co-benefits such as insect and pollinator habitat and native plant restoration;
water savings should not be the only selection/design criterion.
Response: Staff will add text to the description of the “Targeted Turf-to-Xeric Conversions on
City-Owned Properties” strategy to emphasize the opportunity for ecological co-benefits.
Additional comments related to efficiency strategies:
• Given the support for regulatory strategies expressed in customer surveys, Utilities should
consider pursuing more regulatory measures.
• On-bill financing should not be limited to high-cost projects and multi-year loans, but
rather should be available to income-qualified customers for lower-cost equipment
replacements and landscape/irrigation conversions.
• Develop more educational materials pertaining to climate-based scenarios in reference to
the “cost of inaction” to elevate the seriousness of water scarcity in the Northern Colorado
landscape.
• Examine recognition programs at various scales (e.g., individual household,
neighborhood, business, etc.) to promote conservation behavior change.
Response: Staff will prepare or update detailed program plans for the efficiency strategies
identified for implementation following City Council’s approval of the WEP. These program
plans are intended to incorporate specific implementation details such as those included in
these comments.
Collaboration
Comment: As much of Fort Collins’ future growth will occur outside the City’s water utility
service area, tighter partnerships and programmatic integrations with service providers such as
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
are essential to achieving the WEP’s goals. Without alignment across providers, new
development risks falling short of the water efficiency standards Fort Collins has committed to.
Comment: Tighter integration and/or coordinating with ELCO, Fort Collins-Loveland Water
Districts on their WEP plans.
Response: Staff will add new text to the WEP in Section 3 (Integrated Planning and Water
Efficiency Benefits and Goals) to describe in more detail the differences between water
providers in the City’s Growth Management Area, current/ongoing collaborative efforts, as well
as challenges/roadblocks.
Preliminary draft of new text to be added to the WEP:
Certain areas within the Growth Management Area are served by neighboring
water providers. The largest adjacent water providers, East Larimer County
(ELCO) and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD), have their own WEPs
that describe goals and strategies for their service areas. Fort Collins Utilities
values these partnerships and continues to look for ways to collaborate through
coordinated information-sharing, planning, communications/outreach, and
efficiency strategies.
Important differences exist between Water Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD,
including source water supply portfolios, organizational policies, size, staffing,
mission and vision, financial resources, and growth patterns. Through ongoing
and increased collaboration across water providers, there are opportunities to
better plan for risk, improve the resiliency of the water supply systems, and
improve alignment and understanding of policies, plans and processes to best
serve customers. An analysis conducted in 2021 – 2022 by consultants, titled
“Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study
Report Results,” identified over 100 challenges and potential solutions to improve
coordination across water providers.
Examples of current collaboration and coordination between water providers
include:
• Interconnected infrastructure in the treatment and distribution systems
• regular information sharing about water supply and potential restrictions
status
• biannual check-in meetings with FCLWD through the Utilities Business
Resource Team, which supports industrial customers.
The WEP includes new strategies expected to encourage collaboration across
water providers, such as:
• Establish regular contact and information sharing between Fort Collins’
water providers and City Planning staff
• Further integrate water efficiency into strategic plans and policies
• Support One Water efforts and an integrated demand management
approach
Comment: Tighter integration with Poudre School District (PSD), Colorado State University
(CSU) and Front Range Community College (FRCC) for community resources and serve as first
touchpoints for families
Response: Staff will add text to the WEP, Section 5.1 (Implementation) regarding
communications and marketing to highlight the importance of seeking opportunities to partner
with broad-reaching organizations, such as PSD, CSU, and Front Range Community College,
as well as City departments.
Preliminary draft of new text to be added to the WEP:
Staff will seek new opportunities to partner with broad-reaching organizations in
the community such as schools, higher education institutions, and professional
and community organizations to share information and promote efficiency.
Cost of Inaction
Comment: Resources in the plan for individuals to understand costs of inaction. Provide stats
and what it costs related to actions/inactions, e.g., not updating irrigation systems or lawns over
time.
Response: Staff plan to add the following new text to WEP Section 4 to provide examples of
residential and business customer actions that would contribute to the WEP goals, including
estimated water savings, customer costs, and water bill savings associated with efficiency
strategies. Staff will also look for opportunities to highlight similar examples in the WEP
Executive Summary and in future outreach materials.
Water Utilities customers have a variety of options to lower their water use,
including the strategies outlined in this WEP. To illustrate how individual actions
can collectively help achieve the 4% reduction target in Goal 1, the following
examples highlight actions different customers might take overtime:
Residential customers
The average single-unit household in the Water Utilities service area uses about
80,800 gallons of water a year. This means that the average residential customer
can help meet the 4% WEP goal by lowering their water use by about 3,200
gallons each year (relative to current average use).
• Change Showers: Swapping out a 2.5 gallon-per-minute showerhead for
a free 1.5 gallon-per-minute version (currently offered for free through the
Water Conservation Showerhead Swap program) and cutting shower time
from 12 to 8 minutes can save up to 1,500 gallons per year and save
about $5 on water bills.
• Check Sprinklers: Outdoor water use spikes in the summer. Free
irrigation assessments save participating households an average of 5,000
gallons per year and over $16 on water bills. Many lawns have
correctable issues like inefficient watering schedules and broken or tilted
heads.
• Redo Landscapes: Native landscaping is water-smart, supports
ecosystems, and looks great. A 1,000 square-foot project can save 6,000
gallons annually and lower water bills by about $20 annually. The
average cost to Xeriscape Incentive Program participants for a project of
this size was $1,840 and rebates can cover up to $1,000 of that cost.
Additional savings are possible through the Garden in a Box discounts.
Business customers
The typical water use and potential for water efficiency savings varies based on
business type, size, and other factors. The WEP includes a variety of commercial
efficiency strategies, including custom rebates that let a business identify what
opportunities work best for them.
• Plumbing Upgrades: Replacing 10 older urinals with WaterSense models
could save a business between 26,000-60,000 gallons annually and up to
$180 on annual water bills. Even smaller changes—like upgrading five
toilets—can cut 11,000 gallons a year. Rebates available for urinals and
toilets typically offset about 20% of the installation costs.
• Water Efficient Large Landscapes: Replacing bluegrass turf with native
grass species is a cost-effective strategy for reducing water use on large
landscapes. Converting 10,000 square feet can save approximately
70,000 gallons annually. Water Utilities offers rebates up to $15,000 for
qualifying projects.
If detailed and accurate information can be found through research or analysis, staff will modify
the WEP, Section 3.2 (Benefits of Water Efficiency), to include information that is directly
relevant to the City of Fort Collins and customers. To date, quantified data has been difficult to
find or analyze.
ADDITIONAL PLANNED CHANGES
Staff made the following additional changes to improve readability and incorporate the most
up-to-date information available:
• Added an Executive Summary
• Moved the extensive tables of efficiency strategies to Appendix C and replaced them
in the Section 4 text with easier-to-read bulleted lists
• In Appendix C tables, updated efficiency strategy water savings estimates based on
updated water demand modeling that incorporated local climate change projections
provided by the Colorado Climate Center
• Finalized summaries of public review in Section 6 and Appendix B to reflect the final
feedback collection period
NEXT STEPS
Staff are working toward the following timeline for WEP completion:
• July-August: Staff will prepare a final WEP that incorporates the revisions summarized in
this memorandum
• July-September: Staff will provide a memorandum to other boards and commissions that
includes a brief overview of comments and revisions incorporated into the final WEP.
• September: Seek City Council approval of the final WEP at the Sept. 2, 2025 meeting.