Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/11/2021 - WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOTMENTSDATE: STAFF: May 11, 2021 Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Mgr. Liesel Hans, Interim Deputy Utilities Director WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Water Supply Requirements and Allotments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to discuss a proposal to update the methodology for calculating the Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) Water Supply Requirements (WSR). WSR s are a dedication of water rights or cash-in- lieu of water rights (cash-in-lieu) to ensure adequate water supplies and associated infrastructure are available to serve both new development and re-development in the Utilities water service area. For non-residential customers, the WSRs are translated into an annual water allotment (allotment), with an Excess Water Use surcharge (surcharge) applied to water use that exceeds the allotment. Goals of this update include increasing accuracy and equity of the ca lculations and encouraging water efficient designs in development. Staff will present the drivers for the proposal, how the proposed calculations compare to the current system and other water providers' systems, impacts to the community, and opportunities for future improvements. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed concept for the Water Supply Requirements calculations? 2. Is this item ready for a formal Council consideratio n in September of 2021? The information is organized into the following sections: 1. Background 2. Drivers - Outcomes - Benefits 3. History 4. Proposed Approach - Water Supply Requirement Calculations 5. Additional Supporting Details 6. Public Engagement and Outreach 7. Regional Comparisons 8. Strategic Alignment 9. Next Steps BACKGROUND______________________________________________________________________ Water Service Providers in Fort Collins Utilities water service area covers the central port ion of Fort Collins. Utilities supplies water to approximately 75% of residents and business within the city limits. Water service in the surrounding areas is provided by other water providers, including water districts like East Larimer County (ELCO) and Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) water districts, as seen in Attachment 1. Each water service provider has their own drivers (source of supply, development patterns) that determine their WSR calculations and the policies, options, and costs for meeting their WSR. For this proposal, all proposed concepts only apply to the Utilities water service area. May 11, 2021 Page 2 Key Terms and Definitions A complete list of terms and definitions can be found in Attachment 2. Developers, including greenfield development and redevelopment, must meet a Water Supply Requirement: • Water Supply Requirements (WSR): A requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating water rights or paying cash-in-lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure. WSRs are in line with the City’s approach that development pays for itself. • Cash-in-lieu: A developer can meet a WSR by paying cash, instead of providing water rights. The cash -in- lieu rate is based on the cost to meet future water needs and includes the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is $42,422 per 325,851 gallons and is updated every two years. Post-development, Utilities customers have an annual water allotment and may face exce ss water use surcharges. NOTE: These are not the focus of the work session. They are, however, related and it is important to understand the connections. • Allotments: All non-residential taps (commercial businesses and irrigation taps) installed after Ma rch 1984 have an allotment (volume of water in gallons) that is based upon the WSR that was satisfied and the time of development or redevelopment. Only about 1,000 or 33% of commercial customers have allotments. Customers can turn in more water rights or pay additional cash-in-lieu to increase their allotments at any time. • Excess water use surcharge: Non-residential taps with allotments face this surcharge if their annual water use exceeds their allotment. This charge is in addition to the standard wate r use rates. The surcharge provides revenue to purchase additional water rights and/or infrastructure to account for the additional water demand over the allotment and therefore over the WSR satisfied for the property. The surcharge is based on the cash-in-lieu rate. The surcharge is currently $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment and is updated every two years. About 300 non-residential customers pay surcharges each year. DRIVER - OUTCOMES - BENEFITS Utilities is responsible for ensuring our customers have enough water today and into the future. Utilities also upholds the City approach that development and redevelopment pay their own way. As the costs of acquiring and developing water resources have increased, the cost to secure water for the addit ional demand have increased, too. Since 2018, there has been a significant increase in both the cash -in-lieu rate and surcharge. This is not unique to Utilities - all water providers across the Front Range are facing a significant rise in costs. Most water providers are shifting to plan for populations much larger than previously expected, and at the same time, climate change is dramatically increasing the variability in water availability from year to year. Responsible water management is essential to meet the needs of Fort Collins today, and to maintain our quality of life into the future. The current WSR system uses tap size to determine the WSR for all non -residential developments. This can be problematic because tap size is determined by peak daily dem and, which does not always correlate to annual water demand. Additionally, within a tap size, the current WSR calculation methodology is based on the average annual demand for all customers who currently have that tap size. Within any given tap size, there are many different business types, including mixed-use taps and irrigation taps that serve a variety of different sizes and types of landscapes that are all treated the same. Since it is an average, some development’s actual water use will be above the WSR and some will be below. This creates equity issues for developers and customers alike; it means some developments subsidize other developments. And, in situations where the WSRs are too low relative to the property’s actual water use, the allotments are also too small, placing the burden on the customers, who could be required to pay substantial surcharges each year. The proposed update can help Utilities, developers, and customers (the water users) by requiring a WSR volume much closer to the water demand that the property is predicted to use . This will minimize mismatches between actual use, the WSR, and the customer’s allotment. This is also the first WSR update that May 11, 2021 Page 3 incentivizes water efficiency and innovation. Addressing these opportunities now can e nsure the utility and the community are proactively implementing measures to meet future needs and manage increasing costs, while ensuring the problem of mismatched allotments and WSRs are not perpetuated into the future. The proposal aims to meet these needs by: • Increasing Accuracy: In response to the rising costs of water, adjusting WSRs to be more data -driven, detailed, and reflective of development-specific demand is becoming an industry standard. Increased accuracy benefits Utilities, developers, and customers by ensuring WSRs, costs, and allotments are truer to the specific development’s predicted water use. • Improving Equity: Increased accuracy leads to increased equity by ensuring each developer pays their fair share. By better connecting the WSR calculation to expected water use, Utilities ensures each developer pays their share of costs to acquire and develop additional water resources and makes it less likely that a development will pay too much or too little. It will also improve equity for the actual water users, our Utilities’ customers, by ensuring they are not left facing an allotment that is too small for their water needs. • Promoting water efficiency and innovation: Aligning WSR calculations to demand allows highly efficient developments, with lower water demand, to pay less, creating a cost incentive for more water -efficient designs. From the perspective of both Utilities and developers, integrating efficient design strategies at the time of construction is one of the most efficient and cost-effective strategies for managing water demand. Efficient designs also benefit the customer by lowering water bills. HISTORY • 1960: Initiation of WSR (previously called “raw water requirements”). Two-acre-foot equivalent of water rights is required for every acre developed. WSRs can be met via dedication of water rights or cash -in-lieu. • 1960 - 1984: Minor, intermittent updates reflecting changing use patterns and costs to develop water supplies and associated infrastructure. • 1984: In response to more commercial development, WSR calculations are now based on tap size. First year that non-residential developments are assigned allotments based on their WSR. • 1984 - 2018: Minor updates to the cash-in-lieu rate, surcharge, and WSRs to reflect changing use patterns and costs to develop water supplies and associated infrastructure. • 2018: Significant updates to WSR calculations, cash-in-lieu rate, and surcharge in response to rising cost of water resources. Included a 166% increase to the cash-in-lieu and surcharge. Customers with allotments experience an increase in surcharges from an average of $1,500 to $4,000 per year. Analysis reveals that some exceedances are because the original WSR and the resulting allotment being too low for the property’s water use, even if the customer is efficient. This flagged the need to improve the accuracy and equity of WSRs and allotments. • 2019: Council approved the creation of the Allotment Management Program (Ordinance No. 050, 2019). This program provides existing customers a temporary waiver from surcharges while they implement a long-term water reduction project that will mitigate all or a portion of the surcharges permanently. Staff launches effort to update the WSR calculations for new developments and re-developments. PROPOSED APPROACH - WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS A summary of the current and proposed systems is found in Table 1: Current and Proposed WSRs. More detail is provided later in this document. May 11, 2021 Page 4 Table 1: Current and Proposed WSRs Sector Current calculation is based on: Proposed new concept is based on: Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area Only Multifamily Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms* Commercial Tap Size Business Type* Irrigation Tap Size Landscape Type *All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate tap and WSR. Some potential impacts of the proposed concept include: • Resource Implications: In alignment with industry best practices, the proposed concept requires additional information (e.g., outdoor area square footage, business type, and landscape type) to better predict the development’s future water demand. As a result, developers will be required to provide informat ion at different points and, sometimes, earlier in the development review process. More staff resources will be needed for review and enforcement. • Cost Implications to Developer: In the proposed concept, water-efficient developments and developments with lower water demand will pay less, while less efficient developments and developments with higher water use, will pay more. While some developments will pay more in the proposed concept compared to the current system, the changes aim to increase accuracy and equity by better connecting the WSR calculation to expected water use and, as a result, ensure each developer pays their share of costs to acquire and develop additional water supply. • Cost Implications to Utilities: The proposed changes do not impact Utilities finances; the changes are refinements of the current calculations. While lower water use developments would pay less, high water use development would pay more. As a result, there is a neutral impact to Utilities’ finances. • Customer Implications: While these changes are focused on development and redevelopment and, therefore, have the largest impact on the development community, the changes indirectly affect customers by creating more accurate allotments. Better alignment between allotments and water use decreases the likelihood the actual water user, the customer, will incur large surcharge bills due to an allotment that does not match the development’s water need. To prevent all surcharges, customers will still have to manage water use wisely by avoiding excessive water use, inefficient practices, and leaks. MORE DETAILS More details about each sector are described below. Referenced equations can be found in Attachment 3. Non-residential (Commercial and Irrigation) As described earlier, the current WSR is based only on tap size, customers can have mixed use taps (outdoor and indoor use on the same tap), and tap size is determined by peak daily demand, which is largely uncorrelated with actual annual water use. The WSR amount is based on a his torical average of all non-residential customers with the given tap size, which includes a mix of commercial businesses, irrigation, and mixed -use taps. There is a wide variation of annual water demand in each tap size. The new approach proposes eliminatin g mixed-use taps and separately predicting the WSR for commercial and irrigation. To this end, the new approach proposes that all commercial businesses and multifamily developments with landscape irrigation have a separate irrigation tap. • Commercial WSR: The new concept for commercial development calculations is based on business type and size of the business instead of tap size. This reflects that different types of business have different water demands (e.g., retail vs. restaurant water use). In the proposed concept, common business types have an assigned WSR value that was calculated using a predictive model informed by Utilities’ water use data and other information. High-water-use businesses and businesses that do not fit into an assigned category wo uld be required to submit an engineered estimate that outlines estimated annual water use. Table 2, Proposed Commercial WSRs, is a draft of business types and corresponding WSRs: Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft May 11, 2021 Page 5 Table 2: Proposed Commercial WSRs Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay Childcare 28 gal/sq ft Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft Grocery 25 gal/sq ft Hospital Case by Case Hotel 24,000 gal/room Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft Nursing Homes Case by Case Office 7 gal/sq ft Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft Recreation 36 gal/sq ft Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft Retail 5 gal/sq ft Other Case by Case In this proposal, if a 100,000 square foot retail space was developed, the WSR would be calculated by multiplying 100,000 sq ft x 5 gal/sq ft, resulting in a 500,000 gallon WSR. Post -development, the customer would then also have a 500,000 gallon annual allotment. No approach or c alculation methodology will be perfect. We know there will be variation within a business type and year -to year for a given business (e.g., not all 100,000-square-foot retail spaces use the exact same amount of water, nor does one customer use the same amount of water each year), however the proposed approach addresses more variability than the current tap size system, resulting in a more accurate WSR and allotment, which benefits the end-user. • Irrigation WSRs: The new concept for new landscape calculations is based on the amount of water needed by different categories of landscapes. This reflects that some plants require more water in our semi -arid climate, while other plants require less water. The best tool to accomplish this is a Water Budget, which breaks down landscape types by estimated water use instead of tap size. The Water Budget in Table 3: Example Irrigation WSRs is made up of four different categories. Plants are grouped into each category depending on their annual water need as defined by th e City of Fort Collins Plant List and industry standards. The WSR would be based on the total estimated annual water use found in the table. This proposed approach is already widely used by landscape architects, irrigation system designers, and landscape managers. The Water Budget table is already a required element in the City’s Land Use Code for all Landscape Plans, making this an easy approach to implement. Here is an example to illustrate how it would work: Table 3: Example Irrigation WSRs Water Budget Table Example development w/ 7,000 square feet of landscaped area Water Use Water Value (gal/sq ft) Square Feet Water Requirement (gal) High 18 5,000 90,000 Medium 14 1,000 14,000 Low 8 1,000 8,000 Very Low 3 0 0 Estimated Annual Water Use (gal) 112,000 In the example above, the developer would need to satisfy a WSR of 112,000 gallons. Post -development, this WSR would be translated into a 112,000-gallon allotment for the customer. Like the shift to business type, the Water Budget approach does a better job accounting for different water demands by relying on landscape type rather than tap size, resulting in a more accurate WSR and allotment, which ultimately May 11, 2021 Page 6 benefits the utility and the end-user. Additionally, in this model, lower water use landscapes will pay less, incentivizing efficient landscape design and creating more flexibility for developers. • Residential (2 units or less) and Multifamily (3 units or more): The current calculation for residential and multifamily WSRs is based on the number of bedrooms and total lot size per development. Number of bedrooms aims to estimate indoor water use by approximating occupancy, and the lot size aims to estimate outdoor water use. Given current data availability and analysis, number of bedrooms continues to be the strongest predictor for indoor water use in residential and multifamily settings. Lot size, however, is no longer the best predictor for outdoor water use. As a reminder, residential and multifamily WSRs are not translated into annual allotments. Only non-residential (commercial and multifamily) customers have allotments. The proposed concept for updating outdoor water use calculations in each sector is: o Residential (2 units or less): To reflect variations in outdoor irrigable area, staff recommends using outdoor area as a predictor of outdoor water instead of lot size. It is a better predictor of outdoor water use and also accounts for the variability of lot designs (e.g. a 7,000 square foot lot with 1,000 vs. 5,000 square feet of outdoor area). Additionally, this change allows for the possibility of indoor -only taps when there is no outdoor irrigation. o Multifamily (3 units or more): Due to the size and set up of multifamily developments, staff recommends requiring a separate irrigation tap that meets the irrigation sector requirements, described above, to account for outdoor water use in multifamily settings. This change will allow for better water management, proper tap sizing, and more accurate calculations. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING UPDATES Several other items were identified as essential complements to the proposed WSR updates. These include: • Update WSR calculations every two years: To ensure WSRs reflect best practices and new building efficiencies, staff proposes WSR calculations be revisited and updated every two-years. • Water Plant Investment Fees (WPIFs): Water Plant Investment Fees (WPIFs) are the other large component of water development fees and cover the transmission, treatment, and distribution of water. Currently, there is one non-residential WPIF that is applied to both irrigation and commercial taps. To align WSR and WPIFs, staff proposes separating the non-residential WPIF into a commercial WPIF and irrigation WPIF. Compared to today’s rates, commercial indoor PIFs will decrease in cost by roughly 50%, while irrigation PIFs will increase by 50%. • Surcharge Waived for Landscape Establishment: Native and water-wise landscapes require up to three years of supplemental water to become fully established. To account for this establishment period, staff proposes waiving the surcharge for the first three years. During this time, customers would still pay standard water rates but would not pay any surcharges if they exceed their allotment. • Non-Residential (Commercial and Irrigation Only) Alternative Compliance: To encourage innovative and efficient design, staff proposes an alternative compliance option for non -residential designs to meet a lower WSR if they provide an engineered estimate that demonstrates lower water us e. Currently, staff recommends to only provide alternative compliance for non-residential customers because there are limited tools to regulate alternative compliances in residential settings. See “Next Steps” for additional information. • Redevelopment: Currently WSRs are only evaluated in redevelopment scenarios when a new meter is installed. No evaluation takes place if there is only a change of use (e.g. retail space is redeveloped into a brewery). To account for these situations, staff proposes includ ing a WSRs revaluation any time a change of use permit is filed with the building department. In the future, if a development has a higher water need, they will be credited for the current WSR and required to meet the difference to satisfy the higher WSR. If the future development has a lower water need, they will not be required to meet any additional WSRs, and their WSR and allotment will stay the same (i.e., it will not be lowered). • Updates to Land Use Code: To align WSRs with Land Use Code, staff proposes updating the Hydrozone values found in the water budget table to reflect industry standards and require the irrigation plan earlier in the development process to better align irrigation and landscape design. May 11, 2021 Page 7 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH Staff has completed extensive internal and external outreach, summarized below. Staff are grateful to the many individuals who contributed to the proposal. • Internal: City Departments including the Parks Planning, Parks, Natural Areas, Building Services, Utilitie s Finance, and Planning and Development Review all provided extensive feedback. A few notable comments and suggestions include: o Support changes, particularity in the irrigation and commercial sector. o Plan for additional staff time needed to review and enforce. • External: Staff met with a variety of external stakeholders including the Chamber of Commerce, credit and certificate holders, certified landscape professionals, the Board of Realtors, key accounts, the restaurant community, and property owners. A few notable comments and suggestions include: o Help provide education for business owners and highly impacted business sectors (e.g. restaurants) to ensure customers understand the implications when redeveloping and/or developing by expanding to a new location. • Focus Group: In addition to the individual external stakeholder engagement, staff completed four 2-hour focus groups to gather in-depth feedback from highly impacted groups. 68 developers, landscape architects, irrigation designers, and builders were invited to participate. Seventeen were ultimately able to attend the sessions. Each session covered a specific topic. Feedback gathered at each focus group is summarized in Table 4, Focus Group Summary. Table 4: Focus Group Summary Focus What We Heard What We Incorporated Irrigation • Like that cost is reflective of how much a landscape will use. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Alternative compliance method allowed if supplemental design information is provided that demonstrates lower water use. Commercial • Like that cost is more reflective of actual businesses water use. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Request to not require separate irrigation tap if there is minimal outdoor irrigation. • Alternative compliance method allowed if supplemental design information is provided that demonstrates lower water use. • If landscape requires less than 30,000 gallons a year, a separate irrigation tap will not be required. Residential and Multifamily • Like that multifamily is required to have separate irrigation tap as it allows for lower costs with efficient design. • Request for alternative compliance option. • Ensure water use analysis is reflective of efficiencies in new builds. • Exploring building and land use code updates that would make alternative compliance feasible in the future. • Requirements updated every two years to reflect any efficiencies due to new building codes or other relevant changes. • Boards and Commissions: Staff presented to the Water Board (Oct 2019, April 2021), Building Review Board (April 2021), and to many Board and Commission members at a Super Issue meeting (April 2021). Boards and Commissions who expressed interest at the Super Issues meeting will receive individual follo w- up. Staff will also gather in-depth feedback from the Water Board at a work session in June 2021 and a regular meeting in August. Meeting minutes and notes from these events can be found in Attachment 4. A few notable comments and suggestions include: o Support of changes, especially requiring separate irrigation tap. o Desire to include alternative compliance for single and multifamily developments in future WSR update efforts. REGIONAL COMPARISONS While each water service provider has their own drive rs for determining WSR calculations, the proposed methodology is largely aligned with others in the region. May 11, 2021 Page 8 Table 5: Regional WSR Comparisons highlights differences and similarities amongst neighboring communities. Within the table, green aligns with the proposed changes, yellow is closely aligned, and red does not align. As costs continue to rise, and the need to plan and manage water demand increases, it is expected that more water service provider will move toward industry best practices and adopt simi lar approaches. Table 5: Regional WSR Comparisons Separate Irrigation Tap Irrigation Residential and Multifamily Non-residential Utilities Current No Tap Size SF: Beds + Lot Size MF: Beds + Lot Size Tap Size Utilities Proposed Yes Water Budget SF: Beds + Outdoor Area MF: Beds + Lot Size Business Type FCLWD* Yes Tap size SF: Lot size MF: # units Tap size ELCO** Yes Water budget SF: Lot size MF: # units > 0.75’’ tap = Case by case Westminster Yes Water budget SF: Bed/Bath + Irrigation Area MF: Bedrooms Business type Greeley Yes Water budget SF/MF: Lot size Business type Boulder Yes Water budget SF/MF: Bedrooms + Irrigation Area Fixture Counts Loveland Highly Encouraged Water budget SF/MF: Units + Lot Size Tap size *FCLWD: Fort Collins Loveland Water District **ELCO: East Larimer County Water District STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The proposed approach is aligned to a variety of plans and strategic objectives that touch many areas across the organization, community, and state. • City Strategic Plan (2020): The City Strategic Plan provides a vision and framework for the City of Fort Collins. It outlines a variety of goals including: to provide a high -quality water supply, to foster infill and redevelopment opportunities, and to invest and maintain utility infrastructure and service while ensuring predictable utility rates. The proposed updates align to these objectives, and others, by increasing the accuracy and ability to plan, improving equity amongst customers, and encouraging water -efficient and innovative design. • City Plan: The City Plan provides a coordinated and cohesive set of policies to support ongoing climate adaptation and resilience planning throughout the community. The proposed WSR updates support these goals by responsibly managing wa ter resources, reducing water use in new developments, and encouraging development that reduces the impact on Fort Collins ecosystems. • Water Efficiency Plan: The 2015 State- and Council-approved Water Efficiency Plan outlines a goal to reach 130 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2030. The plan also outlines various levels of opportunity, including promotion of greater outdoor water efficiency, greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes, and expansion of commerci al and industrial strategies. The WSRs are in direct support of these goals. • Nature in the City: In 2015, Council adopted the Nature in the City Strategic Plan, which establishes a vision, goals, and policies to enhance habitat within our urban environment and access to nature for all community members. The proposed WSR updates support these goals by encouraging efficient landscape design throughout the community, particularly on private property. • Housing Strategic Plan: The 2021 Housing Strategic Plan is a strategy for “everyone in Fort Collins to have healthy, stable housing, they can afford.” The plan describes goals to achieve this vision, including addressing opportunities with water costs and housing. The proposed WSRs support these goals by more closely aligning costs to a development’s water use and encouraging efficient design. • Colorado Water Plan: The 2015 Colorado Water Plan is the State’s roadmap to sustainable water management. The plan outlines various objectives to meet future demand. The proposed WSR updates align May 11, 2021 Page 9 with the plan’s goals by encouraging municipal conservation and efficiency planning and land use water planning. NEXT STEPS 1. Continue outreach and education: Planned outreach and education events include but are not limit ed to: Building Review Board (May), existing allotment customers (May), Water Board (June), and Planning and Zoning Board (July). 2. Return for formal council consideration (anticipated Sept. 21, 2021). 3. New WSRs calculation implemented, if adopted by C ity Council (effective January 2022). Related Future Efforts: The effort to create this proposal highlighted several additional opportunities for potential next projects. Additional resources may be needed to address these opportunities: • Cash-in-Lieu Increase (planned for late fall 2021): An effort is underway to update the cash-in-lieu cost. The cash-in-lieu cost is reviewed and updated every two years. It reflects the cost to acquire and develop additional water resources like water rights, infrastructure, and storage projects like the Halligan Water Supply Project. These costs continue to increase for a variety of reasons. It is important to ensure the cash -in-lieu cost is based on the best available information to ensure Utilities collects adequate re venue to develop water supplies for new developments. • Assign allotments to all non-residential customers: About two-thirds of all non-residential customers do not have an allotment and are not subject to surcharges. This means only some customers are pa ying the surcharge when they use more than what was provided at the time of development. To create financial equity, and ensure all customers are subject to the same surcharges and rates, staff proposes exploring options to assign allotments to all non-residential customers. Other water providers have taken steps to remedy similar inequities across their customers. • Explore alternative compliance for single and multifamily developments: To further support opportunities for efficient and innovative design, while also mitigating risks to Utilities’ planning and cost recovery, staff proposes to explore how to allow an alternative compliance option for residential and multifamily sectors. • Reevaluate Water Plant Investment Fees (WPIFs): To improve accuracy and equity, staff proposes applying a similar evaluation to WPIFS, the other large component of a developer’s water costs. WPIFs are currently based on tap size, which is determined by peak daily demand. ATTACHMENTS 1. Water Districts Map (PDF) 2. Definitions and Terms (PDF) 3. Water Supply Requirement Calculations (PDF) 4. Boards and Commissions Meeting Minutes (draft) (PDF) 5. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INTERSTATE 25S SHIELDS STS COLLEGE AVES TAFT HILL RDE VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RDLAPORTE AVE E PROSPECT RD S LEMAY AVEE DOUGLAS RD W DRAKE RD STATE HIGHWAY 392N OVERLAND TRLE MULBERRY ST E DRAKE RD S COUNTY ROAD 5C O U N T Y R O A D 5 4 G N U S H I G H W A Y 2 8 7 N SHIELDS STW MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD S OVERLAND TRLE COUNTY ROAD 30ZIEGLER RDW TRILBY RD E HORSETOOTH RD N COUN T Y RO AD 2 3 W COUNTY ROAD 38ECARPENTER RDS COUNTY ROAD 23 E LINCOLN AVEN TAFT HILL RDE COUNTY ROAD 38 W HORSETOOTH RD TURNBERRY RDW ELIZABETH ST N LEMAY AVETERRY LAKE RDS COUNTY ROAD 19N COUNTY ROAD 5S CENTENN IAL DR GR E G O R Y R D GIDDINGS RDW LAUREL ST KECHTER RD S US HIGHWAY 287E COUNTY ROAD 54 E COUNTY ROAD 52 / Fort Collins Area Water Districts 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles Water Districts East Larimer County Water District Fort Collins Loveland Water District Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Sunset Water District West Fort Collins Water District !!City Limits GMA Major Streets Railroads Figure Updated: 9/23/2015 ATTACHMENT 1 Information current as of May 2021 Definitions and Terms related to Water Supply Requirements Update •Acre-foot: An acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. One acre-foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year. For comparison, the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-feet. •Allotment: The volume of water a given tap can use per year before incu rring Excess Water Use surcharges. Only non-residential taps installed after 1984 have water allotments. The allotment volume is based on the amount of Water Supply Requirement satisfied at the time of development plus any increases to the allotment paid for after development. A customer may increase their allotment at any time by paying cash or providing additional water rights. •Allotment Management Program: Provides eligible Utilities water customers with a temporary waiver from their Excess Water Use surcharges if they meet certain qualifications and submit an application detailing a project that demonstrates long-term water reductions. •Cash-in-lieu: The cash equivalent of the water supply required to meet the needs of development. The cash-in-lieu rate is based off the cost to meet future water needs and includes the expected cost to acquire water rights and associated infrastructure. The current cost is $42,422 per 325,851 gallons and is updated every two years. •Duplex: Residential buildings of two dwelling units. •Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms and a single kitchen designed for or occupied as a unit by one family for living and cooking purposes, located in a single-family or multifamily dwelling. •ELCO: East Larimer County Water District. Water district that generally serves the northeastern portion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here. •Excess Water Use (EWU) surcharge: A volumetric charge assessed on all water used through the remainder of the calendar year once a non-residential customer has exceeded their annual allotment. The EWU is applied in addition to the regular utility rates. This surcharge is tied to the cash-in-lieu rate for the Water Supply Requirements and is evaluated every two years. Revenue from the EWU surcharge goes toward acquiring, developing and improving Utilities’ water supplies to address the impact of customers exceeding their planned allotment. The current EWU surcharge is $10.39 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment. •FCLWD: Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. Water district that generally serves all areas south of Harmony Road in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Map found here. •Multifamily: Residential development with three or more dwelling units •Non-residential: All commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes, fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools, including HOA common spaces and irrigation accounts. •Plant Investment Fees: Water Impact Fee paid by the developer to cover the cost of transmission, treatment, and distribution of water to a new development. •Residential: Single-family, duplex, mobile / manufactured homes, and multi-family dwelling units, including fraternity and sorority multifamily housing. ATTACHMENT 2 Information current as of May 2021 • Water Impact Fees: Fees met by developers to cover the costs of acquiring water supply, the transmission, treatment, and distribution of water, as well as installation of cost of the water meter. • Water Supply Factor (1.92): Factor historically included in Water Supply Requirement calculations to account for annual variation in water right yields, different sources of supplies, losses between water sources and the taps, and annual variations in water demands. • Water Supply Requirements (WSR): Water Supply Requirements (WSRs) are part of the Water Impact Fees met by developers to account for the additional demand created from new development. WSR is a requirement for water service from Utilities. A WSR accounts for the additional water demand, defined in gallons or acre-feet of water, brought into the Utilities water service area by a new development or redevelopment. The developer satisfies a WSR by dedicating water rights or paying cash-in-lieu to Utilities. This provides the revenue to develop reliable water resources for the development, including water rights and associated infrastructure. WSRs are in line with the approach that development pays for itself. Page 1 of 4 Summary of Current and Proposed Water Supply Requirement (WSR) Calculations Single Family: All residential single family and duplex (2 dwelling units) developments. •Current calculation: 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =1.92 × [7.048 × 𝐿𝑚𝑞 𝑅𝑖𝑧𝑑 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.)+[12,216.9 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞] 325,851 where, o 1.92: Water supply factor to account for variability in supplies due to annual variation in water right yields, difference sources of water supply, losses between water sources and taps, and annual variation in water demand. o Lot Size: Area of parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, excluding public street right-of-ways, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of premises or an agent of the owner. o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o 325,851: Conversion factor from gallons to acre-feet. •Proposed new concept based on: 𝐼𝑚𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =12,200 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑁𝑞𝑞𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =10 × 𝑁𝑞𝑞𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝐴𝑞𝑑𝑎 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.) where, o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o Outdoor Area: Area of the parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, less: the area of any buildings, paved driveways, City sidewalks, public street rights-of-way, City-maintained tracts and rights-of-way, ditches, railways, and other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 4 Multifamily: All residential developments with 3 or more dwelling units. • Current calculation: 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =1.92 × [9.636 × 𝐿𝑚𝑞 𝑅𝑖𝑧𝑑 (𝑞𝑞.𝑑𝑞.)+[13,592.8 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞] 325,851 where, o 1.92: Water supply factor to account for variability in supplies due to annual variation in water right yields, difference sources of water supply, losses between water sources and taps, and annual variation in water demand. o Lot Size: Area of parcel for which water service is requested, in square feet, excluding public street right-of-ways, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other than the owner of premises or an agent of the owner. o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. o 325,851: Conversion factor from gallons to acre-feet. • Proposed new concept based on: 𝐼𝑚𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑞 𝑊𝑅𝑅 =13,100 × 𝑁𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑞 𝑚𝑑 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑞𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑞 Required to have separate irrigation tap. See Irrigation Tap (page 4) for details. where, o Number of Bedrooms: Number of bedrooms on the parcel for which water service is requested, as determined by the City. Page 3 of 4 Non-Residential (Commercial and Irrigation): All commercial, irrigation, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes, fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools. • Current calculation: Tap size. Table 1 outlines WSR and allotments by tap size. • Proposed new concept based on: Separate commercial and irrigation WSR calculations and methodologies to estimate water use for each sector. o Commericial: Table 2 outlines proposed WSRs by common business types. Case by case or business types not on this list required to submit engineered estimate. Unique or highly efficient designs will be allowed to apply for alternative compliance and, if approved, meet a lower WSR. Table 2: Proposed Concept for Commericial WSRs Draft Business Type Draft Proposed WSR Auto Retail 5 gal/sq ft Auto Service and Repair 8 gal/sq ft Car Wash 170,000 gal/bay Childcare 28 gal/sq ft Gas Station w/o Car Wash 44 gal/sq ft Grocery 25 gal/sq ft Hospital Case by Case Hotel 24,000 gal/room Industrial/Manufacturing Case by Case K-12 Schools 11 gal/sq ft Medical Office 24 gal/sq ft Nursing Homes Case by Case Office 7 gal/sq ft Place of Worship 11 gal/sq ft Recreation 36 gal/sq ft Restaurants 145 gal/sq ft Retail 5 gal/sq ft Other Case by Case Table 1: Current Non-Residential WSRs by Tap Size Tap Size (inches) WSR (acre-feet) Annual Allotment (Gal/Year) 3/4 0.90 293,270 1 2.27 739,680 1.5 4.72 1,538,020 2 7.91 2,577,480 3 or above Engineered estimate required. Page 4 of 4 o Irrigation: Table 3 outlines proposed WSRs calculated by grouping common plant types into water use categories. Different plant types are categorized into each water use category based on industry standards and the City of Fort Collins Plant List. Unique or highly efficient designs will be allowed to apply for alternative compliance and, if approved, meet a lower WSR. Table 3: Proposed Concept for Irrigation WSRs Water Use Water Value (gal/sq ft) High 18 Medium 14 Low 8 Very Low 3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 25, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Tim Johnson, Vice Chair Brad Massey Katharine Penning Eric Richards Justin Robinson Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Rich Anderson Chief Building Official Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT Meeting Minutes March 25, 2021 PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information on the proposed changes to Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building Review Process. STAFF: Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager Staff Report Ms. Neel presented the staff report, explaining that water supply requirements refer to irrigation needs. She explained the formula that is currently being used is based on lot size, but staff has determined it would more accurately be calculated based on outdoor area. She talked about the process changes that would be needed to make this change and explained that this change would mean properties with no outdoor area would not have any water supply requirements. She also explained the pros and cons of the proposed approach noting it allows for indoor-only taps. She noted an analysis of single-family developments built between 2015 and 2019 showed 10% of the time, the proposed new system would have cost more and 90% of the time, it would have cost less. She stated staff is seeking a motion from the Board in support of the changes. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Richards asked if all hardscaped areas will be removed from the lot size calculation . Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted sidewalks are not included as they are not consistent throughout the city and can easily be changed. Mr. Richards asked if the City reviews whether the developer or homeowner actually installs proposed hardscaping and calculations are therefore accurate. Mr. Anderson replied some type of process will need to be implemented depending upon what Council decides. He stated he has worked in communities wherein impervious cover surveys were required as part of final documents and that type of model could be used. Ms. Neel clarified the difference between impervious and pervious surfaces noting the building footprint, garage footprint, driveways, and those types of structures are deemed impervious. Mr. Richards asked if there are benefits to the developer for xeriscaping. Ms. Neel replied in the negative as there is no way of ensuring xeric landscaping will remain in the future. Building Review Board ATTACHMENT 4 City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 25, 2021 Ms. Penning asked about the current requirements for identifying impervious and new impervious area based on modifications to a site. Mr. Anderson replied he would need to do research on those specific requirements regarding the building permitting process and get back to the Board. Ms. Penning asked if that process may only occur during the planning and development process. Ms. Neel replied she believes that is correct but noted it would need to be required as part of the building permit process should these changes be implemented. Ms. Penning commented determining new impervious area should be readily attainable though the cost of having a finalized survey may be a deterrent for custom home builders. Mr. Anderson replied the policy that would be implemented would likely not require the survey unless it couldn’t be verified. Public Input Mr. Hill asked how things like necessary water for maintenance of turf lawns and the placement of aggregate material is taken into account. He commented on challenges with establishing xeric-style grasses. Ms. Neel replied there is a great deal of opportunity to refine the current proposal to take those kinds of issues into consideration. She commented on the need to refine calculations and create a more formalized process to take into account specific landscaping details and possible future changes thereto for single-family homes. She noted there is a process in place commercially and for HOAs and that does include incentives for xeric landscaping. Mr. Hill asked if landscape plans are required for residential projects. Ms. Neel replied that is not required there are currently no landscape or irrigation standards for single-family lots; however, staff is discussing moving forward with some type of standards for those items moving forward. Mr. Hill asked if a percentage of landscaping is required to be installed in order for a singl e-family project to get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Anderson replied there are zoning requirements, particularly commercially; however, those standards are not as restrictive for single -family homes and backflow preventers are the only item inspected for single-family homes. Board Questions and Discussion (continued...) Mr. Teplitsky asked about the average cost of a single-family water tap and approximate range of savings if this were to be implemented. Ms. Neel replied she would share that informat ion with the Board upon doing additional research. Mr. Teplitsky asked if the fees are being paid to the City. Ms. Neel replied they are being paid to Fort Collins Utilities. Mr. Teplitsky asked if these changes would mean less revenue for the Utilitie s. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted that would be offset by the lack of need for the water. Mr. Richards stated it would be helpful for the City to implement a rebate program or system that would require a homeowner to reapply every couple ye ars for water rate reductions based on maintaining xeriscaping and that type of thing. He asked if developments could opt for no exterior water taps. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted those fees would be dropped to zero should a building be able to prove no outdoor tap is in use for irrigation purposes. She noted this helps to account for scenarios wherein the only irrigation is occurring in common spaces. Ms. Penning asked if there is a conservation benefit of this proposal from the City’s p oint of view. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted it is much more cost effective to conserv e than acquire new supply. Mr. Teplitsky commented on the high cost of water in Fort Collins being linked to housing affordability. He concurred with the idea of continuously refining this program. Ms. Neel commented on Fort Collins being serviced by different water providers who have differi ng charges. Chair Cram stated he is uncomfortable with the number of details that have yet to be addressed and he noted full build-out of the city’s lots will likely occur in the not-to-distant future. Given this only applies to new developments, he questioned the future of the program. Ms. Neel replied she would be willing to come back before the Board with additional detail and noted there is currently an extensive incentive and conservation program for existing developments. She also commented briefly on existing programs that address redevelopment. City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 25, 2021 Mr. Johnson stated he likes where this is headed; however, he was unsure about supporting the suggested broad-ranging motion that may be too substantial of an approval at this point. Ms. Neel stated she would be open to recrafting the motion and stated she would like to return before the Board with specific responses given there is ample time to do so before the consideration of this item goes to Council. Ms. Neel commented on the City’s desire to not necessarily require xeric landscaping, but rather to incentivize its use by lowering maintenance costs. Chair Cram suggested common areas be more specifically addressed in this presentation. Ms. Neel replied she did not include that as it is not included in the building review process; however, she noted the development review process requires an improved landscape plan and matching irrigation plan for common areas which allows staff to determine an estimated water use for the landscape. Mr. Anderson noted the Board does not appear to be ready to take any formal action at this time. Chair Cram suggested tabling this item until additional information could be provided. Members agreed with that approach. [Timestamp: 10:07 a.m.] Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING April 15, 2021, 5:30-7:30 p.m. online via Zoom 04/15/2021 – Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES Page 1 Water Supply Requirement Update Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager, provided an update on the status of the Water Supply Requirement Project that was brought to the Water Board in October of 2020. Water Supply Requirements (WSRs) are met by developers to account for the additiona l demand created from new development. These water supplies ensure water reliability and are translated into an equivalent annual water allotment. The update focused on feedback from stakeholder outreach and updates to the residential/multifamily water supply requirements. To address opportunities for accuracy and equity, decrease unnecessary financial burden on end users, and ensure that sufficient WSRs are met, Utilities proposed to change the current WSR and allotment methodology. In the new proposal, WSRs and allotments will be determined by a development’s characteristics (e.g. square footage, business type, landscape type, number of bedrooms, etc.) to more closely align its WSR/allotment with its water usage. By increasing accuracy, Utilities aims to continue to responsibly manage water supplies, while preventing unnecessary financial burdens on customers. Discussion Highlights Abbye Neel highlighted that there will be changes to all four sectors to better align with customers’ water use: irrigation, non-residential (commercial), multifamily, and residential. Two more significant updates are the reevaluation in plant investment fees and an outreach effort to about 20 developers, builders, and architects regarding the proposed changes. A board member appreciated the idea of a separate irrigation tap for outdoor use to better calculate water requirements. Another member would like to see in better detail during the June presentation what the unforeseen consequences of the 2018 update was for customers that the proposal will address, as well as the responses from the 20 organizations of the community. Super Issue Meeting (April 26): Staff presented to a variety of Boards and Commissions. Seventeen Board and Commission representatives attended. Boards that requested additional information will receive individual follow-up. A few notable comments from the discussion and highlights from the Poll Results include: • 76% of participants agreed that water efficiency designs are essential and should be included in every development and redevelopment. • 88% of participants agreed it was fair for high water use developments (e.g. hotels, restaurants) to pay more than low water use developments (e.g. retail, office). • Over 76% of participants agreed the proposal increases equity and accuracy and promotes water efficient design. • Agreement that the proposal is headed in the right direction and, arguably, could be more aggressive in places to tackle future water challenges that will result from growth. • Consider unintended consequences, especially for landscape designs (do designers have access to these materials, will the proposed concepts create divides between new and existing development, how to equitably address redevelopment). May 11, 2021 Wa ter Supply Requirements Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager ATTACHMENT 5 2Questions for City Council 1.What feedback does City Council have regarding the proposed concept for the Wa ter Supply Requirements calculations? 2.Is this item ready for formal Council consideration in September of 2021? 3 Proposed concepts would only apply to new development and re-development within Fort Collins Utilities water service area. HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 4Water Impact Fees PLANT INVESTMENT FEES (PIF) DISTRIBUTION WATER TREATMENT WATER METER FEES WATER METERS WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT (WSR)CACHE LA POUDRE RIVERWATER SUPPLY HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 5What are Water Supply Requirements? Development Additional Water Demand Wa ter Supply Requirements (WSR) fee to account for additional water demand from developments translated to water allotments for all commercial and irrigation customers 6 Strategic Alignment City Plan Housing Strategic Plan Our Climate Future Nature in the City Colorado Water Plan Wa ter Efficiency Plan Wa ter Shortage Ac tion Plan Wa ter Supply & Demand Management Policy City Strategic Plan Utilities Strategic Plan Wa ter Supply Requirements 7History of Water Supply Requirements (WSR) 1960 Utilities starts requiring WSR 1960 Utilities starts requiring WSR 1984 Major update to WSR methodology and start assigning allotments 1984 Major update to WSR methodology and start assigning allotments 2018 Major update to WSR methodology and cost 2018 Major update to WSR methodology and cost 2019 Allotment Management Program Launch update to WSR 2019 Allotment Management Program Launch update to WSR 2021 (Sept) Formal City Council consideration 2021 (Sept) Formal City Council consideration 2022 (Jan) New W SRs implemented, if adopted by City Council 2022 (Jan) New W SRs implemented, if adopted by City Council 8Drivers -Outcomes -Benefits Increase accuracy Improve equity Promote water efficiency & innovation 9Proposed Concepts for New Development Category Current calculation based on:Proposed new concept based on: Residential Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms + Outdoor Area Multifamily Number of Bedrooms + Total Lot Size Number of Bedrooms* Commercial Ta p Size Business Typ e* Irrigation Ta p Size Landscape Typ e *All multifamily and commercial developments would be required to have a separate irrigation tap and WSR. Ad ditional Components: •Alternative Compliance for commericial and irrigation taps •Land Use Code updates 10 Examples 11 Landscapes use water differently. Landscapes use water differently. 12Landscape Examples 278,000 76,000 342,000 Native Grass Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds Bluegrass Average Water Use Max (300,000) Max (84,000) Max (490,000) Max Water Use 50,000 sq ft 5,500 sq ft 20,000 sq ft 13Landscape Examples 278,000 76,000 342,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 Native Grass Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds Bluegrass Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Max Max Max Max Water Use 50,000 sq ft 5,500 sq ft 20,000 sq ft 14Landscape Examples 278,000 76,000 342,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 313,632 81,000 302,000 Native Grass Grass w/ Xeric Planting Beds Bluegrass Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Water Budget) Max Max Max Max Water Use 50,000 sq ft 5,500 sq ft 20,000 sq ft LH70 Slide 14 LH70 What do you think about scooting graph down a bit and moving the legend to the top? There's a lot of info at the bottom of the graph, then you could make the font on the sq ft larger Liesel Hans, 4/29/2021 15Cost Implications Cost Native Grass (50,000 sq ft) Xeric w/ Planting Beds (5,500 sq ft) Bluegrass (20,000 sq ft) Current (Tap Size)$38,000 $38,000 $38,000 Future (Water Budget)$40,000 $11,000 $40,000 •High-water-use landscapes may pay more. •Large landscapes may pay more. •Low-water-use landscapes may pay less. •Smaller landscapes may pay less. 16 Businesses use water differently. Businesses use water differently. 17Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water UseMax Water Use 100,000 sq ft 11 ,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft Max (500,000) Max (110,000) Max (500,000) Max (365,000) 18Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size) Max Max Max Max 100,000 sq ft 11 ,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft Max Water Use 19Commercial Examples 373,000 104,000 413,000 199,696 740,000 740,000 740,000 740,000 562,000 116,000 582,000 252,590 Retail Place of Worship Restaurant 1 Restaurant 2 Average Water Use Current WSR (Tap Size)Future WSR (Buisness Type) Max Max Max Max 100,000 sq ft 11 ,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1,700 sq ft WSR: 5 gal/sq ft WSR: 145 gal/sq ft WSR: 11 gal/sq ft WSR: 145 gal/sq ft Max Water Use 20Cost Implications •High-water-use developments may pay more •Large businesses developments may pay more. •Low-water-use developments may pay less. •Small businesses development may pay less. Cost Retail (100,000 sq ft) Place of Wo rship (11,600 sq ft) Restaurant 1 (4,000 sq ft) Restaurant 2 (1,700 sq ft) Current (Tap Size) $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 Future (Business Type) $74,000 $15,000 $76,000 $33,000 21Community Engagement Who w e heard from:What we heard:What w e propose to change: Boards and Commissions, Stakeholder Groups, Focus Groups Liked increased flexibility and accuracy. Wa nted alternative compliance options. Created alternative compliance options for commercial and irrigation. Wa nted frequent updates to address increased efficiencies in new builds. Set calculations to be reviewed every two years. 22 Separate Irrigation Ta p Irrigation Residential and Multifamily Commercial Fort Collins Ye s Wa ter Budget SF: Beds + Outdoor Ar ea MF: Bedrooms Business Type FCLWD Ye s Ta p size SF: Lot size MF: # units Ta p size ELCO Ye s Wa ter budget SF: Lot size MF: # units > 0.75’’ t ap = Case by case Westminster Ye s Wa ter budget SF: Bed/Bath + Irrigation Area MF: Bedrooms Business type Greeley Ye s Wa ter budget SF/MF: Lot size Business type Loveland Highly Encouraged Wa ter budget SF/MF: Units + Lot Size Ta p size 23Next Steps 1.Continued Outreach and Education (Ongoing) 2.Formal City Council Consideration (Sept 2021) 3.Adoption (Jan 2022) 24Related Future Efforts Increase accuracy Improve equity Promote water efficiency & innovation 1.Update cash-in-lieu (late 2021) 2.Require allotments for all non-residential customers 3.Add residential alternative compliance option 4.Evaluate & align Plant Investment Fee (PIF) calculations 25Questions for City Council 1.What feedback does City Council have regarding the proposed concept for the Wa ter Supply Requirements calculations? 2.Is this item ready for formal Council consideration in September of 2021?