HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/24/2022 - WORK SESSIONCity of Fort Collins Page 1
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Remote Meeting
City Hall
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney Interim City Manager City Clerk
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
City Council Work Session
May 24, 2022
6:00 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER.
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Regional Transportation Update. (staff: Dean Klingner; 15 minute presentation; 15 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek input from Council on its desire to collaborate and cooperate on
regional transportation solutions.
The communities of Larimer County are strongly interconnected, and a safe and reliable regional
transportation network is needed to support our communities’ travel needs. Although there is
transportation funding legislation at both the state and federal levels, significant gaps remain in the
ability to meet the regional transportation needs in our county.
2. Extended Outdoor Patios. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 10 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion)
During the pandemic, emergency orders were put in place to support hospitality businesses by
allowing extended outdoor patios on public property. The extended patios have become very
successful both economically and as a vibrant way to activate streets and sidewalks. Staff is proposing
a framework to make these spaces permit-able outside of the Emergency Order.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Council Compensation Update. (staff: Teresa Roche; 20 minute presentation; 40 minute discussion)
After reviewing the updated benchmark analysis on Council pay and benefits at their April 18 meeting,
the Council Compensation Committee would like the full Council to review the data and determine if
there is interest in a ballot initiative to change Charter Article II Section 3 which provides for an annual
compensation adjustment for the Mayor and Council based on changes to the Consumer Price Index
Urban (CPI-U).
4. Halligan Water Supply Project Update. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Linsey Chalfant, Theresa Connor; 15
minute presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update Council on the status of the Halligan Water Supply Project
(Project), including upcoming key milestones and activities in the near term.
The Project is needed to meet treated water demands of future Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities)
customers and will provide added reliability for all Utilities water customers, including during prolonged
drought and other emergencies such as wildfires or infrastructure failures.
The City has been in the federal permitting process for this Project since 2006. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) has been working on addressing comments received in early 2020 on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with a projected schedule to release the Final EIS in early
2023. The Corps’ final permitting decision would come one to two years later. At the same time, the
City has been focusing on state permitting processes, developing a 30% design, and acquiring
easements from adjacent landowners. Given these various steps in permitting and other activities, the
Project is currently anticipated to start construction around 2026.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS.
D) ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
May 24, 2022
Dean Klingner, Deputy Director, PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Regional Transportation Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek input from Council on its desire to collaborate and cooperate on regional
transportation solutions.
The communities of Larimer County are strongly interconnected, and a safe and reliable regional transpo rtation
network is needed to support our communities’ travel needs. Although there is transportation funding legislation at
both the state and federal levels, significant gaps remain in the ability to meet the regional transportation needs in
our county.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. How important is regional transportation relative to local transportation and other priorities?
2. What approaches you are interested in pursuing to address regional transportation solutions?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Larimer County seeks input from Council on its desire to collaborate and cooperate on regional transportation
solutions. The communities of Larimer County are strongly interconnected, and a safe and reliable regional
transportation network is needed to support our communities’ travel needs. Although there is transportation
funding legislation at both the state and federal levels, significant gaps remain in the ability to meet the regional
transportation needs in our county.
The City/Town Managers of all communities in Larimer County expressed support for advancing discussions
around regional transportation solutions, starting with meetings with each elected body in the County. We seek to
understand the relative importance of regiona l transportation to the community and to know what approaches
Council is interested in pursuing to address regional transportation solutions. We also hope to learn about the
“must haves” and the “deal breakers” for the community to coordinate on regional t ransportation.
Larimer County initiated and funded a planning effort in 2018 to explore funding opportunities for regional
transportation. The effort terminated with an unsuccessful sales tax ballot measure in 2019. The County
recognizes two notable detractors from the success of that initiative:
1. Transportation was bundled with county facilities on the ballot question, which was a mistake. It led to voter
confusion and the perception that the sales tax was too ambitious.
2. The 2018/2019 effort involved collaboration at the technical and policy levels through a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and a Regional Task Force (RTF). The TAC included a staff representative from each
community in Larimer County, while the RTF included an elected official represent ative from each community.
This structure did not enable broad discussion and support from the elected bodies throughout the County,
resulting in mixed support for the ballot question.
B.1
Packet Pg. 3
May 24, 2022 Page 2
As the conversation around regional transportation is renewed, the C ounty wishes to learn from these missteps
and explore alternative approaches to achieve mutually beneficial solutions. We look forward to hearing ideas and
collaboration. Council input will be combined with that of the other elected bodies across the County to determine
whether there are shared interests in potential next steps.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.1
Packet Pg. 4
Regional Transpor tation Solutions
Discussion with For t Collins City Council
May 24, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1 B.1.1
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Assess and inspire your
community’s desire to collaborate
and cooperate on regional
transportation solutions
Meeting Purpose
A cohesive and collaborative strateg y is needed to identify
solutions for regional transpor tation needs
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
AG ENDA
1.Defining Regional Tr ansportation
2.Regional travel snapshot
3.Current funding environment
4.Discussion
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Regional Transpor tation Solutions
Improving mobility for people, g oods and ser vices using any
travel mode (driving,riding transit,bicycling,walking,etc.)
between communities and across our region.
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
REGIONAL Tr av el Snapshot
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
A mobile and interconnected region…
Employed residents who commute elsewhere for work
Source:U.S.Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,2019
484 3,639
6,0973,235
12,48726,487
37,1401,317
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
A mobile and interconnected region…
Employees who arrive from elsewhere
Source:U.S.Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,2019
1,008
5,4352,012
902 8,16228,296
48,1632,479
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Countywide Trave l Patterns
Percent of employed
residents who commute
elsewhere for work
Count Share
Larimer County 95,431 60.4%
We ld County 14,611 9.2%
Boulder County 10,641 6.7%
Denver County 8,232 5.2%
Adams County 5,483 3.5%
Arapahoe County 4,863 3.1%
Jefferson County 4,626 2.9%
El Paso County 2,781 1.8%
Douglas County 1,968 1.2%
Laramie County (WY)1,088 0.7%
All Other Locations 8,368 5.3%
To tal 158,092 100.0%
Source:U.S.Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,2019
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Countywide Trave l Patterns
Percent of employees who
arrive from elsewhere
Count Share
Larimer County 95,431 62.8%
We ld County 23,845 15.7%
Boulder County 4,845 3.2%
Jefferson County 3,937 2.6%
Adams County 3,714 2.4%
Arapahoe County 3,429 2.3%
Denver County 3,234 2.1%
El Paso County 2,813 1.8%
Douglas County 1,751 1.2%
Laramie County (WY)1,059 0.7%
All Other Locations 8,021 5.3%
To tal 152,066 100.0%
Source:U.S.Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,2019
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Source:U.S.Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,2019
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Each community has a unique
transpor tation stor y and
priorities;all communities
generate re gional trave l
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Tr anspor tation Funding Environment
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Senate Bill 21-260 (SB 260)
•$5 Billion in transpor tation funding for Colorado
•Partial distribution via Highway Users Ta x Fund (HUTF)
•Approximately $50 million over 10 years
•Emphasis on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction
•Regionally Significant projects subject to GHG mitigation requirements
•Uncertainty about new gas and registration fees
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Infrastructure Inve stment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
•$1.2 Trillion legislation
•10-year federal infrastructure inve stment strategy
•New and continuing grant opportunities
•Emphasis on projects with regional impact
•Expected trend in awarding multimodal projects,transit,trails,complete
streets and resiliency projects;focus on equity
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Public Perception:
Tr anspor tation is funded!
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
NOTA BLE
Funding Gaps and
Considerations
•Increasing construction costs
•Federal Infrastructure Bill is grant
heavy;competitive,local match
requirements
•Non “Regionally Significant” projects
(as defined in SB 260 and CDOT
Rulemaking)
•Shift in focus to multimodal and transit
projects reduces ability to fund
capacity projects
•Uncer tainty about how greenhouse gas
rulemaking will be applied
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Local Funding Attempt
•Te chnical Advisor y Committee and Regional Ta sk
Force formed in 2018
•Compiled regional transpor tation infrastructure
projects ($547M in needs)
•Evaluated and ranked infrastructure projects and
deve loped strategy for project “short list”
•Identified eligibility criteria for transit
•Unsuccessful Half Penny sales tax ballot question
in 2019
Short List of Projects
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
•Identifying the right mix of projects that works for all
communities and resonates with the public is challenging
•Message was not getting back to City Councils,community
leaders
•Municipalities should have “skin in the game” –Council
involvement and monetar y contribution to planning effort
•Bundling transportation with facilities was a mistake
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Discussion
Understanding your interest in collaborating on
regional transpor tation
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
What are the “must have s” for
yo ur community to coordinate on
re gional transpor tation solutions?
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
What are the “deal breakers” that
wo uld prevent your community
from coordinating on regional
transpor tation solutions?
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
Thank you!
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11593 : Regional Transportation Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
May 24, 2022
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Extended Outdoor Patios.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the pandemic, emergency orders were put in place to support hospitality businesses by allowing extended
outdoor patios on public property. The extended patios have become very successful both economically and as a
vibrant way to activate streets and sidewalks. Staff is proposing a framework to make these spaces permit -able
outside of the Emergency Order.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council have regarding the proposed intent and considerations presented?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As occupancy restrictions were put into place in 2020, the City enacted numerous Emergency Orders to support
local businesses. Temporary outdoor dining and temporary outdoor expansion permits, allowed for patios on
sidewalks not connected to a building, patios in on -street parking spaces, patios in right-of-way space, and patios
in private parking lots.
For the most part, these spaces have been well received and are an amenity that many would like to see continue
going forward. As the pandemic appears to be less and less of a threat to economic shutdown, staff has been
working towards options to establish on-going permits and the needed code amendments for Council
consideration.
Much of staff conversation has focused on feedback from questionnaires and conversations and site visits with
current patio operators. The proposed ongoing extended patio program strives to preserve the intent of street
activation and vitalization while considering safety and potent ial impacts to parking availability, non-hospitality
businesses, neighboring businesses, and aesthetics.
The intentions of any program/permit would be to:
• Allow extended patios where appropriate:
o Maintain a clear 7-foot pedestrian walkway on sidewalks.
o Keep pedestrian traffic within 10-feet of all storefronts.
o Keep patios within the width of business building (both on sidewalk and in street parking.)
o Maintain access to public amenities such as accessible ramps and parking, benches, and bike rac ks.
o Maintain required emergency access.
• Allow flexibility for seasonal or year-round operation.
• Address safety through:
o Guidelines and inspections for any barriers, electric, stormwater, and traffic impacts.
o Existing Building, Fire, and Stormwater codes.
o Police Services recommendations on late-night activity and patio use.
B.2
Packet Pg. 28
May 24, 2022 Page 2
• Provide guidance on preferred infrastructure (railings, plantings, decking, walls, signage, etc.)
Fort Collins streets and streetscape design are varied, and program develo pment has been focused on flexibility
while ensuring the concepts listed above.
Some outstanding considerations include:
• How much parking should be maintained on a street face?
o We currently only have a few patios in on-street parking but “what if” in the future numerous businesses
on a block wanted on-street patios?
• Is there concern for the type of activity in the extended patios?
o Is it ok if patio use is mostly bar rather than dining related? Can it serve as additional waiting areas?
• While the City has established fees for Encroachment and Obstruction permits (and these would likely be
waived over the next year) the cost could increase over time.
Process Development
Process/Permit Code Change
Private Property Development Plan or Minor Amendment Possible minor change
On-Contiguous Patio
on Public Sidewalk
Encroachment Permit (+Sidewalk Permit
if serving alcohol)
Minor change to clarify not
directly adjacent to building
On-Street Patio in
Public Parking Area
Obstruction Permit (+Sidewalk Permit if
serving alcohol)
Create a definition for “Parklet”
and add Parklet Permit
ROW/Parkway Encroachment Permit None needed
NEXT STEPS
Some of the processes outlined above require minor code changes to clarify the intent, physical location, and use
of an extended patio. Staff is recommending these code changes to allow maximum flexibility due to the newness
of use and the varied street design throughout the City. To move ahead of any repeals of statewide emergency
orders, these changes may not come to Council as a package but rather individually as they are ready.
Staff will be working to streamline and communicate process and guideline creation recommendations to
businesses.
Once necessary code changes are in place, the temporary outdoor dining and temporary outdoor expansion
permits could be rescinded.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.2
Packet Pg. 29
Extended Outdoor Patio Process Development
May 24, 2022Ginny Sawyer, Project and Policy Manager
ATTACHMENT 1 B.2.1
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
2Council Direction
1.What questions does Council have regarding the
proposed intent and considerations presented?
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Background 3
Pandemic Actions:
-Indoor occupancy restrictions put into
place.
-Emergency Orders :
-Te mporary Outdoor Dining, and;
-Te mporary Outdoor Expansion Permits
Emergency Orders allowed:
•Businesses to set up patios on the
sidewalk (not attached to buildings), in on
street parking locations, in private parking
lots, and in the Right-of Way.
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Background 4
Overall, extended patio space
has been well received.
As an on-going use need to
align operational considerations
and safety.
Staff proposing minimal code
change and greater flexibility
through guidance document.
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Proposed Code Changes 5
•Create a definition for “Parklet”and add
Parklet Permit.
•Parklet permit for on-street patio use.
•Currently relying on Obstruction Permit which
was designed to accommodate construction
needs.
•Minor change to Encroachment Permit to clarify
patio does not need to be directly adjacent to
building.
•Establishments serving alcohol will also need a
permit to transport beverages across the
sidewalk into the permitted patio space.
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Safety Items 6
•Accessibility
•Parking availability
•Pedestrian clearance
•Combustion
•Egress
•Structures
•Size of extended patio
may impact approved
building occupancy.
•Stormwater will be on
permit routing.
Engineering/Parking Poudre Fire Authority Building/Stormwater
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Guidance Document 7
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
Next Steps
•Bring minor code changes
•Communicate permit availability and
intentions of Guidance Document
•Stay in a learning/flexible space for 1-2
years
8
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
9Council Direction
1.What questions does Council have regarding the
proposed intent and considerations presented?
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11596 : Extended Outdoor Patios)
DATE:
STAFF:
May 24, 2022
Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Council Compensation Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After reviewing the updated benchmark analysis on Council pay and benefits at their April 18 meeting, the Council
Compensation Committee would like the full Council to review the data and determine if there is interest in a ballot
initiative to change Charter Article II Section 3 which provides for an annual compensation adjustment for the
Mayor and Council based on changes to the Consumer Price Index Urban (CPI -U).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers wish to consider a ballot measure for the November Municipal election asking voters to
amend the Charter to modify Council pay?
2. If so, what are Councilmembers’ suggestions regarding a Council pay proposal for the voters to consider?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Data on Council pay and benefits was collected in March 2022 from seven peer (Wilmington, NC, Naperville, IL,
Asheville, NC, Greensboro NC, Oklahoma City, OK, Eugene, OR, Plano, TX) and six Front Range (Arvada,
Greeley, Colorado Springs, Thornton, Loveland and Lakewood) cities. Several years have passed since there
was a competitive benchmark study done. hrQ conducted the study at the direction of the Council Compensation
committee.
The findings revealed only two cities (one peer and one Front Range) have a lower compensation level for Mayor
than Fort Collins. Four cities report a higher salary for the Mayor Pro Tem than other Council members; three of
the cities are on the Front Range and only one peer city has this practice. Only two Front Ra nge cities have a
lower compensation level for Council than Fort Collins. Fort Collins has the lowest compensation level for Council
among the peer cities in the study.
The City Charter provides for an annual compensation adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index Urban
(CPI-U). There are other defined external factors that could be considered such as Cost of Living Index,
Employment Cost Index and Area Median Income. The 1998 compensation was set at $750 per month for the
Mayor and $500 per month for each Councilmember. With the annual adjustments, the 2022 pay amount is
$1,339.50 per month for the Mayor and $892.67 per month for each Councilmember.
This item will be updated to include the presentation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (PDF)
B.3
Packet Pg. 39
City of Fort Collins City Council Compensation Benchmark StudyApril 2022ATTACHMENT 1B.3.1Packet Pg. 40Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
•City Council Structure•Annual Compensation•Reimbursements/Allowances•Benefit Eligibility•Documentation of Council DutiesTopics2B.3.1Packet Pg. 41Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
•Data was collected in March 2022 via virtual meetings with City Human Resources employees, via email and online research.List of Cities in Benchmark StudyPeer Cities• Wilmington, NC• Naperville, IL• Asheville, NC• Greensboro, NC• Oklahoma City, OK• Eugene, OR•Plano, TXFront Range Cities• Arvada• Greeley• Colorado Springs•Thornton• Loveland• Lakewood3B.3.1Packet Pg. 42Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Cost of Living Comparison Survey CitiesSource: US Census Bureau; smartasset.comTotal Taxes HousingFoodAsheville, NC 83,393 94,589 13.4% -8% 3% -19% -14%Eugene, OR 156,185 176,654 13.1% -2% 18% -13% -4%Greensboro, NC 269,666 299,035 10.9% -3% 3% -9% -11%Naperville, IL141,853 149,540 5.4% 7% 4% 14% -4%Oklahoma City, OK 579,999 681,054 17.4% 5% 2% -13% -12%Plano, TX 259,841 285,494 9.9% -4% -16% 0% -8%Wilmington, NC 106,476 115,451 8.4% 1% 3% 1% -8%Arvada 106,781 124,367 16.5% similar 0% 0% 0%Colorado Springs 420,691 479,257 13.9% -5% 0% -11% -3%Greeley 93,156 109,084 17.1% -6% 0% -14% -4%Lakewood 143,294 156,195 9.0% similar 0% 0% 0%Loveland 67,000 76,341 13.9% similar 0% 0% 0%Thornton 119,753 142,118 18.7% similar 0% 0% 0%Fort Collins 144,461 169,810 17.5%COL Compared to Fort Collins City2010 Population2020 Population% Change in Population4B.3.1Packet Pg. 43Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Study Results5ConfidentialB.3.1Packet Pg. 44Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
•City Council sizes range from 5 to 10 members, with 5 of the 14 cities in the study having 8 members; there is no correlation between a city’s population or area size to the number of Council members City Council Structure SummaryAll Elected from Ward or DistrictMix of Wards and At LargeAll Elected At LargeNumber of Cities644•None of the Front Range cities in the study have a City Council where all members are elected At Large•Research did not uncover processes used to determine Ward or District boundaries; ordinances may contain vague wording such as “equal populations”•Mayors are usually considered part of the City Council with the same voting rights as members; principal duties are to preside over City Council meetings and serve as the ceremonial head of the city•Mayor Pro Tem positions are selected from current Council members and fill in for the Mayor should they be unavailable•Most City Councils have staggered elections, with members serving 4-year terms •If term limits are stated, the limit was generally 2 terms•Mayors are also elected to 4-year terms 6B.3.1Packet Pg. 45Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Council Structures – Peer Cities7City2020 PopulationArea in Square MilesCity Council StructureTerms NotesFort Collins169,810 57.2- Mayor- 6 Council Members, from Districts-Mayor: 2 year terms, limited to 3 terms- Council: 4-year staggered terms, limited to 2 terms Mayor presides over City Council meetings, ceremonial head of City; signs legal documents;Mayor Pro Tem: chosen from Council, 2-year term; Council is responsible for policy decisionsAsheville, NC94,589 45.6- Mayor- 6 Council Members-All At Large- 4-year staggered terms- Mayor on separate ballot- Mayor: Presides over City Council; ceremonial head; no veto power- Vice Mayor: Appointed by City Council- City Council: Determines the needs to be addressed and the degree of service to be provided by city governmentEugene, OR176,654 44.1- Mayor- 8 Council Members, All from 8 Wards- 4-year staggered terms- Mayor on separate ballot- Mayor: Has no vote except in case of tie; formal representative of City- City Council: Responsible for passing laws, setting community goals, adopting policy, and deciding which services the City will provide.Greensboro, NC299,035 129.0- Mayor- 8 Council Members, 3 At Large, 5 from Districts- 4-year terms- Mayor: Presides over City Council- Mayor Pro Tem: Selected from Council Members- City Council: Sets and directs policy regarding City government operations; executed by City ManagerNaperville, IL149,540 38.8- Mayor- 8 Council Members- All At Large-Approving City policies, ordinances and other regulations.- Responsible for matters dealing with employee salaries and benefits.Oklahoma City, OK681,054 606.3- Mayor- 8 Council Members, All from 8 Wards- 4-year terms- Mayor: Part of City Council- City Council: Develop City prioritiesPlano, TX285,494 71.7- Mayor- 7 Council Members-All At Large- 4-year terms- Term limited to 2 terms- Mayor: Part of City Council- City Council: District residency requirement for members in Places 1 through 4Wilmington, NC115,451 51.4- Mayor- 5 Council Members-All At Large-Mayor: 2-year term- Council: 4-year staggered terms- Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem: Part of City Council- Mayor Pro Tem: chosen from CouncilB.3.1Packet Pg. 46Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Council Structures – Front Range Cities8City2020 PopulationArea in Square MilesCity Council StructureTerms NotesFort Collins169,810 57.2- Mayor- 6 Council Members, from Districts-Mayor: 2 year terms, limited to 3 terms- Council: 4-year staggered terms, limited to 2 terms Mayor presides over City Council meetings, ceremonial head of City; signs legal documents;Mayor Pro Tem: chosen from Council, 2-year term; Council is responsible for policy decisionsArvada 124,402 38.8- Mayor- 5 Council Members; 4 from Districts, 1 At Large- Duties of Mayor and City Council members laid out in detailColorado Springs479,257 194.9- Full-time Mayor- 9 Council Members- 6 from equally populated districts, 3 At Large- 4-year terms- Term limited to 2 terms- Has had Strong Mayor structure since 2011- Mayor is Full-time elected positions, not part of City Council, has veto authority- City Council can override veto with 2/3 majorityGreeley109,084 48.8- Mayor- 6 City Council- 4 from Wards, 2 At Large- 4-year staggered terms - Mayor is part of City CouncilLakewood156,195 43.0- Mayor- 10 Council Members, 2 from each of 5 Wards- 4-year staggered terms - Mayor is part of City Council, no veto power- Mayor Pro Tem chosen annuallyLoveland76,341 34.4- Mayor- 8 Council Members, 2 from each of 4 Wards- No term limits- Mayor has same voting rights as other City Council Members- Mayor Pro Tem is elected by Council with same term as Mayor- City Council residency requirement of 1 year in Ward prior to electionThornton142,118 35.9- Mayor- 8 Council Members, 2 from each of 4 Wards- 4-year staggered terms - Mayor is part of City CouncilB.3.1Packet Pg. 47Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Annual Compensation - MayorAnnual Compensation - MayorMinimum Median MaximumPeer Cities$15,228$24,000$29,925Front Range Cities*$12,000$18,000$38,800All Cities*$12,000$24,000$38,800Fort Collins$16,074•Annual salaries for the Mayor’s role range from $12,000 to $38,800. The $38,800 is an outlier as it is $8,875 higher than the next highest mayor salary.•Only two cities (one peer and one Front Range) have a lower compensation level for Mayor than Fort Collins.*Data for Colorado Springs is not included as they have a Full-Time Mayor government structure.9B.3.1Packet Pg. 48Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Mean Annual Compensation - Mayor•Compensation for the Mayor of Fort Collins falls below both the mean and median across all comparisons (Peer, Front Range, or All Cities).Annual Compensation – MayorMinimum Mean MaximumPeer Cities$15,228$24,035$29,925Front Range Cities*$12,000$22,160$38,880All Cities*$12,000$23,254$38,800Fort Collins$16,074*Data for Colorado Springs is not included as they have a Full-Time Mayor government structure.B.3.1Packet Pg. 49Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Annual Compensation – Mayor Pro Tem•4 Cities report a higher salary for the Mayor Pro Tem than other Council members; 3 of the cities are on the Front Range, only 1 peer city has this practice.•Compensation for Mayor Pro Tem of Fort Collins is the same as City Council. *Data for Colorado Springs is not included as they have a Full-Time Mayor government structure.9Annual Compensation – Mayor Pro TemMinimum Median MaximumPeer Cities$19,000Front Range Cities$9,600$15,000$21,000All Cities$9,600$17,000$21,000Fort CollinsSame as City Council: $10,712B.3.1Packet Pg. 50Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Mean Annual Compensation – Mayor Pro Tem•Four cities are represented in the data, as most cities provide the same compensation for the Mayor Pro Tem as City Council.•Fort Collins does not have a different compensation level for Mayor Pro Tem.Annual Compensation – Mayor Pro TemMinimum Mean MaximumPeer Cities$19,000Front Range Cities$9,600$15,200$21,000All Cities$9,600$16,150$21,000Fort CollinsSame as City Council: $10,712B.3.1Packet Pg. 51Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Annual Compensation – City CouncilMinimum Median MaximumPeer Cities$12,000$13,214$23,377Front Range Cities$6,250$12,500$18,000All Cities$6,250$13,000$23,377Fort Collins$10,712Annual Compensation – City Council•Annual salaries for the City Council members range from $6,250 to $23,377, with 13 of the 14 cities falling at or below $18,000.•Only two Front Range cities have a lower compensation level for City Council than Fort Collins.•Fort Collins has the lowest compensation level for City Council among the peer cities in the study.•City Council salaries are customarily set by ordinance. In order to adjust Council or the Mayor’s salary, City Council must approve by a vote, allowing the increase to be effective past the next election date.10•Two peer cities, within the ordinance regarding compensation, have allowed for annual increases using a defined inflation factor. Fort Collins also follows this practice.B.3.1Packet Pg. 52Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Mean Annual Compensation – City Council•Compensation for the Fort Collins City Council falls below both the mean and median across all comparisons (Peer, Front Range, or All Cities).Annual Compensation – City CouncilMinimum Mean MaximumPeer Cities$12,000$15,169$23,377Front Range Cities$6,250$11,984$18,000All Cities$6,250$13,699$23,377Fort Collins$10,712B.3.1Packet Pg. 53Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
•Expense reimbursements are defined within the City ordinances as “reasonable and necessary expenses”; limitations and rules for approval are generally included •3 of the 14 cities do not reimburse for expenses•Common reimbursements include:•Travel to Council-related conferences, meetings, classes•Mileage to attend events where they are representing the City•Cell phone, laptop and/or internet service allowances or provision•Meals during Council meetings•Office supplies•Association dues •Greensboro, NC was the only city reporting an annual car allowance for City Council members:•Mayor: $4,200 •Mayor Pro Tem: $3,600•City Council: $3,000Expense Reimbursements11B.3.1Packet Pg. 54Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Eligible to ParticipateNot Eligible to ParticipateFort CollinsPeer Cities52Front Range Cities32 (1 Not Available)Benefit EligibilityHealth, Vision, Dental Insurance Participation•When City Council members are eligible to participate in the Health Insurance benefits provided to City employees, cities require the member to pay the full premium. In cities interviewed, it was reported as a “rare” event when Council members would participate.•Minimal other benefits are provided by the cities to the Council members:•Voluntary life insurance can be purchased in a few cities•Arvada, CO was the only city to report a provision that allows a Council member to participate in retirement, the supplemental 457 plan12B.3.1Packet Pg. 55Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Mayor City Council•Signing legal instruments•Review and approve budgets•Represent city in local and regional meetings and events•Represent the city to the press•Approves Council members expenditures•Serves on boards and commissions•Review and approve budgets•Determine policy for City direction•Evaluate performance of City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk•Attending council meetings and planning sessions•Attending strategic planning meetings•Participating in groundbreakings, ribbon cuttings and grand openings•Attending community events•Participation in local, regional and national organizations•Hosting events within ward•Attending conferences away from CityDocumentationof Council DutiesMost often, the duties for the Mayor and City Council are briefly outlined in the City Charter. The descriptions generally state that the Mayor is the ceremonial head of the city and presides over Council meetings. City Councils are charged with setting the direction and policy of the City to be carried out by the City Manager and staff.However, several cities, have gone to the effort of expanding on those outlines and have listed specific duties, requirements and expectations of the roles in either job descriptions, a manual or a brochure.13B.3.1Packet Pg. 56Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Thank YouBrian Wilkerson ybwilkerson@hrqinc.com y(303) 564-5686Julie Stanek yjulie@hrqinc.com y(970) 310-5582B.3.1Packet Pg. 57Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Appendix – ICMA 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey excerpts19ConfidentialB.3.1Packet Pg. 58Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
ICMA 2018 Survey Results -Chief Elected OfficialSource: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMASurvey Highlights • The vast majority of chief elected official positions are part-time and receive an annual salary or stipend. • Local governments rarely place term limits on chief elected officials, but those that do most often limit those terms to two four-year terms. • Most chief elected officials may vote on all issues during council meetings. B.3.1Packet Pg. 59Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
ICMA – Chief Elected OfficialSource: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMAB.3.1Packet Pg. 60Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
ICMA – Chief Elected OfficialSource: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMAB.3.1Packet Pg. 61Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
ICMA City CouncilCouncil Survey Highlights • Being a member of the council is rarely a full-time position. Over 90 percent of respondents indicated that their council member positions are all part-time. • Term limits on council positions are rare overall but are most commonly found in communities with 100,000 residents or more. • Less than one in five responding local governments have concurrent council terms. Few local governments put all council seats up for election in the same year.Source: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMAB.3.1Packet Pg. 62Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
Survey Highlights •Local elected officials are nearly always paid a salary or stipend. •Chief elected officials (mayors or the council president) are paid an average of $16,837 per year. • Full-time mayors are paid an average of $61,723. •Part-time council members are paid an average of $5,244 per year. •Some local governments symbolically pay their elected officials $1 per year. This typically only happens among council-manager communities in which elected officials do not provide day-to-day administration. ICMA – Mayor/Council CompensationSource: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMAB.3.1Packet Pg. 63Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
ICMA – Mayor/Council CompensationSource: 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey; ICMAB.3.1Packet Pg. 64Attachment: hrQ Compensation Benchmark Study (11636 : Council Compensation Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
May 24, 2022
Donnie Dustin, Water Engineer II
Linsey Chalfant, Civil Engineer III
Jason Graham, Water Reclamation/Biosolids Manager
Alice Conovitz, Sr. Project Manager
Theresa Connor, Utilities Deputy Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Halligan Water Supply Project Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council on the status of the Halligan Water Supply Project (Project),
including upcoming key milestones and activities in the near term.
The Project is needed to meet treated water demands of future Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) customers and will
provide added reliability for all Utilities water customers, including during prolonged drought and other
emergencies such as wildfires or infrastructure failures.
The City has been in the federal permitting process for this Project since 2006. The U.S. Army Corps of Eng ineers
(Corps) has been working on addressing comments received in early 2020 on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), with a projected schedule to release the Final EIS in early 2023. The Corps’ final permitting
decision would come one to two years later. At the same time, the City has been focusing on state permitting
processes, developing a 30% design, and acquiring easements from adjacent landowners. Given these various
steps in permitting and other activities, the Project is currently anticip ated to start construction around 2026.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have any questions about the Halligan Water Supply Project?
2. How can we best inform Council in quarterly reports and other communications?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Project is key to the Utilities’ water future. Developing water supplies in Northern Colorado is dynamic and full
of uncertainty. Climate change, increased competition for water supplies, permitting processes and the associate d
challenges, and changing growth make developing these supplies both essential and complex. Utilities’ Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy provides guidance for addressing these uncertainties through multiple
means, mainly through developing additio nal supplies (e.g., acquiring storage capacity) and continued water
conservation efforts.
Water Service Providers in Fort Collins
Utilities’ water service area covers the central portion and majority of Fort Collins. Utilities supplies water to
approximately 75% of residents and businesses within the Fort Collins city limits. Water service in the surrounding
areas is provided by other water providers, mainly the East Larimer County (ELCO) and Fort Collins -Loveland
(FCLWD) Water Districts (Attachment 1). Each water service provider has their own drivers (e.g., sources of
supply, water portfolios, development patterns, etc.) that determine their water supply needs. The Project and its
benefits only apply to the Utilities water service area.
B.4
Packet Pg. 65
May 24, 2022 Page 2
Strategic Alignment
The Project aligns with several of the City’s strategic objectives in the Safe Community and Environmental Health
outcome areas, including:
• SAFE 5.5 – Provide and maintain reliable utility services and infrastructure that directly preserve and impro ve
public health and community safety.
• ENV 4.4 – Provide a reliable, high-quality water supply; as well as other strategic objectives around climate
resiliency and improving the health of the Poudre River.
It also aligns with the Utilities’ Water Supply a nd Demand Management Policy, which the objectives are: “To
provide a sustainable and integrated approach to: 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable supply of water for
the beneficial use by customers and the community; and 2) managing the level of dema nd and the efficient use of
a scarce and valuable resources consistent with the preferences of Water Utility customers and in recognition of
the region’s semi-arid climate.”
Water Supplies and Demands
Utilities’ main sources of water supply are the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) and the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project (CBT). On average, Utilities uses approximately equal amounts of water from these two
sources each year. The Poudre River supplies are delivered to the Utilities’ Water Treatment Facilit y through two
pipelines that divert off the river near Gateway Natural Area. Joe Wright Reservoir, located near Cameron Pass
on a tributary to the Poudre River, has an active capacity of about 7,100 acre -feet, and is the only storage
reservoir fully owned and operated by Utilities that directly provides water to the Water Treatment Facility. Utilities
owns contractual units in the CBT Project, which is administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (Northern Water). These CBT units are delivered to Utilities out of Horsetooth Reservoir, which is not
owned or operated by Utilities. Northern Water has policies that limit the Utilities’ ability to store excess water in
Horsetooth Reservoir for use in later years.
Utilities currently delivers about 24,000 acre-feet per year of treated water to its customers and around 3,000
acre-feet per year of untreated (raw) water for irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemetery, and other green belt
areas. Per capita treated water demands, which are measured in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and exclude
large contractual use, have declined significantly over the last couple of decades from about 200 gpcd to around
136 gpcd more recently. This is about a 30% reduction in per capita water use and shows the effectiveness of
Utilities’ water conservation efforts. Most of this savings is considered in the Project via reduced capacity needed
in the enlarged Halligan. Water conservation efforts are ongoing, but conservation alone is not enough to meet
future water demand and will not add reliability to Utilities’ water supply system in the face of drought, fires, and
other uncertainties if used to meet future demands.
The current water supplies for Utilities are adequate for current demands in most years. Ho wever, these-
snowpack driven water supplies can vary significantly throughout the year and from year to year. Per the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy (Attachment 2), Utilities maintains enough water supply to meet
demands through at least a 1-in-50 year drought event in the Poudre River basin while maintaining 20% of the
annual demand in storage (storage reserve factor) to provide extra protection against emergency situations . In
addition, the Policy directs Utilities to plan for a demand level (150 gpcd) that is higher than the water
conservation goal (currently 130 gpcd by 2030). These criteria provide a water supply planning approach that
addresses uncertainties such as climate change, river administration changes, system outages, and competing
water rights.
The amount of future water supplies needed for the Utilities water service area depends on population and
commercial growth. Utilities currently serves about 143,000 tr eated water customers. The water service area
population is projected to grow to about 178,000 by the year 2065. In addition, large contractual water use is
expected to increase in the future. Utilities’ total projected treated water demand is expected to be about 38,400
acre-feet per year by the year 2065. These projected values are the basis of the purpose and need for the
Project. Recent projections from the City’s Planning Department indicate that future populations in our service
area could go as high as 195,000 by 2070 under the newer City Plan scenarios.
B.4
Packet Pg. 66
May 24, 2022 Page 3
A key concern for Utilities is that its water supplies are highly reliant on CBT Project storage. Utilities has very little
storage for its Poudre River water supplies, which restricts its ability to effectively manage these supplies and
meet demands if the CBT supplies were ever to be unavailable or if their yield were reduced due to challenges in
the Colorado River basin. By approximately doubling our existing storage, the Project will allow Utiliti es to meet its
projected demands, while also providing a storage reserve for emergency water shortage scenarios (e.g.,
drought, infrastructure failures, impacts of wildfires, etc.) and a place to store water for later use.
Halligan Water Supply Project Background
Halligan Reservoir is an existing reservoir on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River (North Fork). It is
located about 24 miles up the North Fork from the confluence with the mainstem of the Poudre River at Gateway
Park. The Project includes building a replacement dam approximately 200 feet downstream of the existing
Halligan Dam to increase reservoir capacity by about 8,200 acre -feet for a total enlarged capacity of
approximately 14,600 acre-feet. Water in the existing 6,400-acre foot Halligan Reservoir is currently used and
operated by the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). After the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, NPIC will
continue to use and operate their capacity in the reservoir as it has historically.
Permitting for the project officially began in 2006, but the City has been pursuing the Project since the late 1980s.
Key milestones and Council approvals for the project are shown on the timeline provided. (Attachment 3)
Project Benefits and Impacts
The Project provides multiple benefits to Utilities’ water customers demonstrated by supplying a cost -effective and
reliable water supply, while providing significant environmental benefits to the North Fork of the Poudre River
downstream of Halligan Reservoir. The Project provides improvements to the existing North Fork habitat
(Attachment 4), through year-round water releases that promote stream connectivity and riparian health. The
most significant benefits are summarized below:
• It enlarges an existing reservoir, creating fewer environmental impacts than building a new reservoir.
• It is the most cost-effective option to meet Utilities’ water storage needs. According to current cost estimates,
it is less than $19,0001 per acre-foot of firm yield, which is about six times less expensive than the current
cost of firm yield for CBT water.
• It will provide year-round flows on the North Fork, a river that is periodically segmented because it runs dry in
some locations due to existing diversions and structures. These flows will reconnect the river and improve the
fishery and aquatic habitat for 22 miles downstream of the Halligan Dam.
• It will be gravity-fed, and no pumping (and resulting emissions) will be required to fill the reservoir or convey
the water to the Poudre River to be exchanged to the Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility. This is consistent
with the City’s climate action goals.
• It replaces an aging dam that will need to be rehabilitated in the future regardless of whether the Project
occurs or not.
• It has been considered an “Acceptable Planned Project” by the Western Resource Advocates2 and other
environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited have expressed support.
As with any water supply project of this scale, and despite the many net benefits in ce rtain areas, there are some
adverse environmental impacts associated with enlarging Halligan Reservoir.
• Inundation of wetlands and riparian habitat will impact areas around the existing reservoir shoreline; however,
it is anticipated that most shoreline wetlands and riparian habitat will reform at the enlarged reservoir’s new
shoreline, resulting in a net loss of less than six acres of wetlands.
1 The unit cost for the Project of $19,000 per acre-foot of firm yield uses $150 million, which is the upper end of the range for
the most probable cost from the 2019 Halligan Cost Update (see Attachment 5).
2 Western Resource Advocates (2011). Filling the Gap, Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water Needs.
Available at: http://westernresourceadvocates.org/water/fillingthegap/FillingTheGap.pdf
B.4
Packet Pg. 67
May 24, 2022 Page 4
• Impacts to 13 acres of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat, including critical habitat for this threatened
species. Similar to wetlands, most of this habitat is expected to reestablish at the enlarged reservoir shoreline,
yielding a total net impact of 4.3 acres.
• Seasonal inundation of 0.75 miles of the North Fork upstream of Halligan Reservoir.
• Minor reduction in stream flows on both the North Fork and mainstem of the Poudre River during runoff
season, mainly from the town of Laporte upstream to Halligan Reservoir and the City’s pipelines near
Gateway Natural Area.
• Temporary construction impacts such as noise, light, dust, access road improvements, and ground
disturbance around the dam.
These impacts will be mitigated as part of the federal and state permitting processes.
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Utilities staff has worked with the City’s Natural Areas Department, outside consultants and environmental groups,
and other subject matter experts to develop concepts proposed to mitigate potential environmental impacts of the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. These were summarized in the Conceptual Mitigation Plan , which was
released for public review and comment with the Draft EIS in 2019. An updated Conceptual Mitigation Plan is
being developed for inclusion with the Final EIS to describe the currently planned mitigation measures and
incorporate public and agency input. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan includes alternatives to minimize, mitigate,
or enhance resources that would be impacted by the reservoir enlargement.
The overall objective of the mitigation effort is to provide overall benefit equivalent to, or g reater than, adverse
impacts, with in the following general categories:
1. Design the Project to avoid and minimize impacts on natural systems and to preserve ecological integrity.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts would be achieved through Project design and layout, construction
techniques, and operational measures.
2. Avoid and minimize impacts on social and cultural resources.
3. Compensate for the remaining potential or unavoidable impacts to environmental and cultural resources.
This is called “compensatory mitigation” and would be achieved by restoration, establishment, enhancement,
or preservation of those resources impacted by the Project.
Additionally, Fort Collins has developed voluntary enhancement measures that go above and beyond mitigation
requirements and demonstrate Fort Collins’ commitment to improve existing environmental conditions.
The guiding principles used to identify and develop mitigation concepts for the Project include:
• Prioritize opportunities for mitigation near Halligan Reservoir, to enhance or replace function in the North Fork
or nearby location.
• Target local, degraded resources for mitigation, which have a greater impact and success than developing
new resources.
• Focus on concepts that benefit multiple resources or an entire e cosystem. For example, restoration along the
North Fork improves not only the fishery, but also macroinvertebrates and vegetation.
• Identify opportunities to work with local partners.
There are over 50 concepts described in the Conceptual Mitigation Plan t hat have been developed to avoid,
minimize, compensate, or enhance resources affected by the Project. The key mitigation concepts are described
below:
B.4
Packet Pg. 68
May 24, 2022 Page 5
• North Fork flows and habitat restoration:
o Measures that establish minimum flows in the North Fork throughout the year and reconnect the currently
disconnected stream, improve flows and habitat that have been adversely impacted since original dam
construction in the early 1900s.
▪ This includes a retrofit of the existing North Poudre Canal diversion to allow fish passage and bypass
of Project flows (including a completed agreement with NPIC to allow this).
• Water quality: Outlet works will be designed and operated to optimize temperature and dissolved oxygen of
releases from the enlarged Halligan Reservoir. Additionally, the outlet works will allow for dam maintenance
and inspection without lowering reservoir levels, reducing risk of large sediment releases.
• Wetlands and Riparian Resources: Alternatives being pursued include restoration or enhancement of land
along the North Fork and tributaries.
• Construction-related: Measures include dust mitigation, monitoring for cultural and paleontological
resources and wildlife, revegetation and restoration of disturbed areas, restoration of a widened access road,
control of noxious weeds, stormwater control, traffic control, etc.
• Monitoring: Post-construction regulatory and voluntary monitoring to evaluate post-Project conditions.
• Early Mitigation: In addition to these mitigation concepts, in 2003, as an act of early mit igation in anticipation
of the Project, Fort Colins led the purchase and preservation of 4,960 -acre property known as Roberts Ranch.
Fort Collins funded 60% of the conservation easement in partnership with Larimer County, Great Outdoors
Colorado, The Nature Conservancy, and the Roberts Family. The protected property provides direct and
indirect ecological benefit and includes suitable habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and big game
species.
Final mitigation requirements, developed from these mitigation concepts, will be included in the requirements
incorporated into federal and state permits.
PERMITTING
Federal Permitting Process
Utilities officially entered the joint National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act Section 404
permitting process in 2006. The lead permitting agency is the Corps. The NEPA process requires the Corps to
consider and disclose the analysis of potential environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to any major
federal action, such as the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. To comply with NEPA,
the Corps is required to prepare an environmental analysis. Under the Clean Water Act and its regulations, the
Corps must permit the least environmentally damaging practicable alternat ive (LEDPA), which may or may not be
the City’s preferred alternative of the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir.
The NEPA process has many steps which are shown in Figure 1. The process includes
• Determining Utilities’ purpose and need for the proposed Project;
• Considering alternatives to the proposed Project (described below); and
• Providing detailed environmental analysis of all alternatives.
The detailed environmental analysis is summarized in the Draft EIS, which was issued by the Corps in late 2019.
The Draft EIS was the best opportunity for the public to review and comment on the Project. About 60 comment
letters and statements were received during this process. The Corps is currently preparing the Final EIS,
expected in early 2023, which will address those comments. A Record of Decision (ROD) will then be provided
determining the LEDPA, which is the alternative that can be constructed.
In addition to the federal permitting process, several state and county processes are also needed. These must be
conducted before the Corps can issue the ROD. The state and county permitting processes are described in more
detail below.
B.4
Packet Pg. 69
May 24, 2022 Page 6
Figure 1. The NEPA Process
Project Alternatives
The federal permitting process requires an identification and evaluation of alter natives to the City’s preferred
alternative of the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir that will meet the purpose and need (provide firm yield for
Fort Collins Utilities in 2065). These alternatives are:
• Expanded Glade Reservoir: Enlargement of the proposed Glade Reservoir, part of the Northern Integrated
Supply Project (NISP), which is awaiting the Corps’ Record of Decision. This alternative is contingent on NISP
being permitted.
• Agricultural Reservoir Enlargement: Purchase of dedicated storage space in existing agricultural reservoirs
located northeast of Fort Collins.
• Gravel Pit Reservoir Enlargement: Involves using existing gravel pits located northwest of Fort Collins.
• No Action: The NEPA process is required to include an evaluation of No Action as part of the EIS. However,
for this Project, the No-Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need because mandatory drought
restrictions would be necessary to provide water through the 1-in-50-year drought.
Each of the non-Halligan Reservoir Enlargement “action” alternatives would require pumping and associated
greenhouse gas production, a larger area of disturbance, considerable pipeline infrastructure to connect to
Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility, and pretreatment of the water before reaching the f acility. The additional
requirements of these alternatives result in higher capital and operations and maintenance costs than those of the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. Capital and annual operation and maintenance costs of the other “action”
alternatives are up to five times greater than those required for the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir.
If any of the alternatives to enlarging Halligan Reservoir were permitted and pursued, Halligan Reservoir would
revert to the NPIC. Given the age and condition of the over 110-year-old reservoir, the existing dam would need
to be replaced soon to address an eventual safety issue. Since Utilities owns about 36% of the NPIC shares, it
would most likely pay for a proportion of the rehabilitation through increased share assessments.
State and County Permits
In addition to the federal permitting process, several state and county processes also need to be conducted.
These will be conducted in parallel with preparation of the Final EIS and are described in more detai l below.
B.4
Packet Pg. 70
May 24, 2022 Page 7
• Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (FWMEP)
o Requirements: A Colorado statute requires a FWMEP be prepared to ensure “that fish and wildlife
resources that are affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversi on, delivery, or
storage facilities should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is economically reasonable and
maintains a balance between the development of the state's water resources and the protection of the
state's fish and wildlife resources.” A FWMEP is the State of Colorado’s position on measures that will be
employed to mitigate the impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The FWMEP is not a permit but rather a
recommendation to the Corps. Typically, FWMEPs are integrated into federal p ermits or are enforced
through separate agreements between the water project proponent (i.e., the City) and Colorado
Department of Natural Resources.
o Timeframe: Work on the FWMEP could not begin until after comments were received on the Draft EIS.
Therefore, Utilities began work toward the FWMEP in May 2020 and is anticipated to be completed in
2023.
• 401 Certification
o Requirements: Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone applying for a federal permit or
license which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, obtain a certification
that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. No
license or permit may be issued by a federal agency (such as the Corps) until certification required by
section 401 has been granted by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
o Timeframe: The City began data collection to support the 401 Certification process before the Draft EIS
was issued by the Corps. Given the extensive water quality and temperature modeling efforts required for
the 401 Certification application, and the lengthy application review time by the Water Quality Control
Division of CDPHE, the 401 Certification is not anticipated until approximately 20 24. The 401 Certification
must be received prior to issuance of the ROD by the Corps.
• 1041 Permit/Matters of State Interest
o Requirements: In 1974, the Colorado Legislature enacted House Bill 74 -1041, which authorizes counties
and other municipal governments to identify, designate, and regulate areas and activities of state interest
through a local permitting process to allow counties to maintain their control over certain development
projects. Larimer County’s 1041 regulations are in Chapter 14 of the County’s Land Use Code. Section
10.3.1(J) of the County’s Land Use Code requires a 1041 Permit for:
Site selection and construction of a new water storage reservoir or expansion of an
existing water storage reservoir resulting in a surface area at high water line in excess of
50 acres, natural or manmade, used for the storage, regulation and/or control of water for
application to a beneficial use, including augmentation, commercial, domestic, industrial,
municipal, and replacement uses, provided this designation excludes water storage
reservoirs used exclusively for irrigation or stormwater detention facilities. A new water
storage reservoir shall also include all appurtenant uses, structures and facilities (i.e.,
those necessary and integral to the proper functioning of the project), including internal
roads, parks, parking, trails, recreational uses, and other uses.
The Project thus needs a 1041 Permit from Larimer County.
o Timeframe: Preliminary work toward the 1041 process has been ongoing since the public comments
were received on the Draft EIS. Based on input from Larimer County staff, the City will begin work on the
1041 application in an official capacity after the 30% design for the Project and the FWMEP are complete.
Based on the current schedule, work will begin on the 1041 in 2023.
B.4
Packet Pg. 71
May 24, 2022 Page 8
o City of Fort Collins 1041: Although the City is considering adopting its own 1041 regulations, we
understand that they would focus on projects that occur within the City limits. It is not anticipated that the
Project would be subject to any City 1041 regulations since the Project facilities are outside of the City
limits.
PROJECT COST
Project costs were last updated in 2019. That update was summarized for Council in a memo dated August 26,
2019. (Attachment 5) The table below provides a breakdown of Project costs, including the amount spent to date
and the amount that has already been appropriated for the project.
SPENT TO DATE1 (MILLIONS)
Permitting $20
Real Estate Acquisition $3
Design And Construction $3.5
Mitigation -
Total $26.5
APPROPRIATIONS TO DATE (MILLIONS) YEAR
$37.3 Prior to 2015
$5 2022
TBD2 Future
Notes:
1. Life to date costs through February 2022.
2. Future appropriations will be determined with the 2022 Halligan Project Cost Update.
Permitting costs to date have exceeded $20 million thus far, and the cost of permitting and mitigation together are
currently anticipated to be over 40% of the total project cost.
The 2019 cost estimate was presented as a range to reflect uncertainties about the proje ct schedule,
environmental mitigation requirements, access needs, and the conceptual nature of the design. In 2019, it was
estimated the cost of the Project to be between $100 million and $150 million. Costs are predominately influenced
by factors outside of the City’s control, including the permitting schedule and permitting and environmental
mitigation requirements.
Although current information indicates costs will likely exceed the upper end of the range of $150M, standard
engineering practices indicate total costs can be expected to vary in the future as additional information is
obtained and Project requirements are further defined. Costs will be updated again after 30% design is complete
and more is known about environmental mitigation requirements and land acquisition needs. That detailed
information will not be available until early 2023. As a part of each cost estimate update, an annual anticipated
spend (i.e., burn rate) will be developed. Annual spend can be expected to fluctuate on the project as the
schedule progresses and permitting and design phases are implemented and completed. This information will be
shared with Council as it is developed.
B.4
Packet Pg. 72
May 24, 2022 Page 9
The Project continues to be the most cost-effective alternative for meeting the Utilities’ water supply needs. Based
on the 2019 cost estimate, the Project is anticipated to provide firm yield at about $19,000 per acre -foot. For
comparison, the market rate for firm yield from the Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) Project is approximately
$120,000 per acre-foot. The graph below shows the cost of water supply projects in Northern Colorado (per acre -
foot of firm yield).
Figure 2. Estimated Unit Costs of the Halligan Water Supply Project through Time
The Halligan Water Supply Project will be paid for by fees related to new development and through customer
rates. It will be funded approximately 50% by Water Supply Requirements from new development and 50% by
customer rates and surcharges (including residential, commercial, and industrial). These percentages ma y
change depending on the final cost of Halligan and are based on the current cost estimate.
SCHEDULE
The Project is approaching the release of the Final EIS and FWMEP in 2023. The schedule for the Final EIS,
ROD, associated state and local permitting, and construction are largely dictated by the federal and state
permitting processes, over which the City has little control. Currently, best estimates place construction beginning
in approximately 2026 and lasting approximately three years.
The schedule in Figure 3 shows the remainder of the federal, state and county permitting processes, as well as
the schedule for design and construction.
B.4
Packet Pg. 73
May 24, 2022 Page 10
Figure 3. Halligan Project schedule
2022 ACTIVITIES
The Project is progressing toward several milestones, wh ich are anticipated to be reached in 2022--2023,
including:
• 30% design of the enlarged Halligan Reservoir dam
• Halligan program cost update
• Release of the FWMEP
• Release of the Final EIS by the Corps
• Ongoing land and property acquisitions for construction and long-term operation of the enlarged Halligan
Reservoir dam.
The FWMEP and the Final EIS will both be made available for public review. The FWMEP and 30% design will
provide new information that will be incorporated into an updated project cost estimate that will also be prepared
in 2022. Utilities staff will provide key messages and other information on these milestones to Council and others
when appropriate.
RECREATION
A concept was considered to open portions of the enlarged Halligan Reservoir and i ts north shore to limited public
recreation, including fishing, human-propelled boating while fishing, and wildlife viewing. To make transparent and
methodical decisions across various City -owned and managed lands, the Natural Areas Department (NAD)
developed the Visitor Use Impact and Decision Framework (IDF). The IDF is adapted from the Interagency Visitor
Use Management Council’s tool to help land conservation managers understand what recreation opportunities are
appropriate for conserved lands. The results of the IDF are carefully researched and used to guide the
Department’s recommendations on management issues. The department designed the IDF to ensure
transparency around visitor use and to systematically explain complex decisions.
The framework resulted in a NAD staff recommendation to not proceed with recreation at Halligan Reservoir,
even in the limited nature originally proposed. This decision was based on high ecological impact in an area used
by big game and other wildlife, input from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, lack of comments on the Draft EIS
B.4
Packet Pg. 74
May 24, 2022 Page 11
regarding the need for recreation, required capital investment and significant operational costs, safety and liability
concerns, and lack of equity for Fort Collins citizens and Utilities ratepayers.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Given the longevity of this Project, staff has conducted public outreach in many ways over the years. There was
significant emphasis on outreach leading up to the release of the Draft EIS in late 2019, since that provided the
best opportunity for the public to review and comment on the Project. Staff meets periodically or when requested
with Project stakeholders, interested parties, Boards and Commissions, etc. to keep them up to date on the
Project.
Staff will continue to update the City’s project-specific website at fcgov.com/halligan. Citizens can sign up at this
website to be emailed updates on the project as they occur. Furthermore, an email address and internal process
has been set up specifically for public communication related to this project: halligan@fcgov.com.
Staff continues to provide periodic updates (usually quarterly and as needed) on the Project to City Council and
the Water Commission, which are also posted on the Project website for public review and transparency. The
most recent update was the 2021 Year in Review (fcgov.com/halligan/2021).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. Water Supply Demand Management Policy (PDF)
3. Project Timeline (PDF)
4. Current and Proposed River Conditions (PDF)
5. Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (PDF)
6. Glossary of Terms (PDF)
7. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.4
Packet Pg. 75
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HORSETOOTH
MULBERRY
SHIELDSLAPORTEUS
HIGHWAY287
STRAUSS CABINLAUREL
MOUNTAIN
DRAKE
PROSPECT
WILLOX
TAFT HILLVINE
COUNTRY C LU B
SUNIGA VINE
RICHARDS LAKE
TURNBERRYTRILBY
COUNTY ROAD 38
M ULBERRY
DOUGLAS
ELIZABETH LEMAYMULBERRY
COUNTYROAD38 E
MOUNTAIN VISTA
LIN COLN
HARMONY
GREGO
RYKECHTER
CO
U
N
T
Y
ROAD54G
STATE HIGHWAY 392HARMONY
VINE
MASONMAINSUNIGA
ZIEGLERLINCOLN
COUNTY ROAD 3CARPENTERJOHNFKENNEDY
COUNTY ROAD 30
HARMONY COUNTY ROAD 5COUNTY LINEINTERSTATE25COUNTY ROAD 5TAFT HILLCOUNTY ROAD 19GIDDINGSCOLLEGETIMBERLINELEMAYLEMAYLEMAYZIEGLERRIVERSIDE
OVERLANDTERRYLAKEZI
EGLERSHIELDSCOUNTYROAD5INTERSTATE 25TAFTHILL/
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
GMA
!!!!!!City Limits
Major Streets
Figure Updated: 10/23/2018
All boundaries are approximate
ATTACHMENT 1B.4.1
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Water Districts Map (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
ATTACHMENT 2
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY
i
B.4.2
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
ATTACHMENT 2
ii
B.4.2
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
1
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management Policy provides a
foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions concerning the
City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions by the Water
Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this policy.
Objective
To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable
supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level
of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences
of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year
vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states,
“Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to
providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community
while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”
This Water Supply and Demand Management Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated
approach” to water demand and water resources management. Sustainability is defined within
the context of the triple-bottom-line decision making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically,
creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our
present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which
we depend.” Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility will take a leadership role by
incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water supply and demand. When this
core value is applied to the use and development of our valuable water resources, the Utility will
strive to:
Avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment
Consider the social benefits and impacts of having a reliable and high quality water supply
Analyze the economic cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has
to our local and regional economies
The Utility will continue to provide a culture of innovation that finds proactive and creative
solutions in managing its water supplies and demands, which is a dynamic process that evolves
along with changes in data management and technology, legal and political environments,
economic development and water innovation, and as the State’s population continues to increase.
Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective policy that is based on
current data. The policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and updated by 2020, or
sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
2
1.0 WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing
indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing
outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable changes in landscaping.
The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes
Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs
Encourage and promote innovation in water demand management
Prepare for potential impacts of climate change
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan1 established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water
use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)2 by the year 20203. The City will utilize water use
efficiency measures and programs with the aim of reducing its water use to an average of 140
gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2)
impacts on water demand due to changes in land use policies, building codes and housing trends,
3) additional studies on climate change, and 4) changes in the water use goal as may be adjusted
by any subsequent water conservation plans. This water use goal is subject to change as
discussed above and is intended as a goal that can be met while sustaining reasonable indoor and
outdoor values of the City.
The per capita peak daily demand4 will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by
the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans.
1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program
Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and
effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the
programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures
include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational
1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and
likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this policy, water use efficiency is
referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.
2 Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment
Facility for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange
arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.
3 This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use
of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average
daily water use of 197 gpcd.
4 The peak daily demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios of
average to peak daily use.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
3
measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.
The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis
and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s
water use goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the status and
results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be updated at a
minimum of every seven years, as currently required by the State of Colorado.
1.3 Water Rate Structures
The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of
customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently
while also providing sufficient revenue for operational and maintenance purposes. Examples of
structures that may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use
increases, 2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget
approaches based on appropriate targets for individual customers.
The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial
analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the
rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate
structure will require City Council approval.
1.4 Population Growth
Population growth is an important factor in determining the City’s water supply needs, since
increases in population generally increase the need for additional supplies. Population growth
projections and associated water demand are mostly a function of land use planning,
development densities, annexation and other growth related issues that can be affected by City
Council decisions. The Water Utility will continue to work closely with the Current Planning
Department, which provides population projections that may be effected by changes in City
policies related to growth.
2.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV
21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration
potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities
shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental
factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered
when addressing water supply for municipal use include:
Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility
Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not overly depend on any one source
Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances
Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security
Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management
Collaboration with the City’s regional water providers and users
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
4
Maintaining awareness of state, national and worldwide trends and adapting as needed to
meet our customer needs
Promoting education, awareness and a culture of innovation among the Water Utility and
others to enable creative responses to future water supply uncertainties
2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer
models that estimate the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water
supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for
planning future supplies.
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level
The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita
demand level of 150 gpcd5,6. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water
use goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.
It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water
supply facilities. Because water supply system infrastructure may take many years to permit and
construct, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to size facilities that may be needed for
the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger than the water use goal, primarily
because of the uncertainties related to projected water demands, yields from specific water
rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.
2.1.2 Drought Criterion
The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the
planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River
Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be
planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought
criterion, considering the time required to obtain water court decrees and permit and construct
diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a
balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such
reliability and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.
2.1.3 Storage Reserve Factor
The City’s water supply planning criteria will include a storage reserve factor that equates to
20% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought7,8. This factor provides an
5 The 150 gpcd value is based upon the normalized 2006-2011 average daily use.
6 The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment Facility for use by Water
Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the
estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is multiplied by population projections
developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate future water demands.
7 For the Water Utility, 20% of annual demand is equivalent to around 3.7 months of average winter demand and
about 1.5 months of average July demand.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
5
additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other
reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed
a 1-in-50 year drought.
2.2 Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount
of water required to maintain existing landscapes9; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty
related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are
conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will
continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply
planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.
2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply
shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought)
or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.
This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns,
regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include
provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts,
leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short
situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The
plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s
water use and its water supply system.
2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities
In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain
system reliability and operational flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its
current water supply system. The following policy elements address ways of meeting these
needs.
8 In meeting this factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT
unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the following year. However, this program has varied over the years and
there is no guarantee that it will be continued in the future.
9 Current research indicates that changes in precipitation in this area are uncertain but that temperatures will increase
and therefore it is likely that runoff will come earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may more often
come as rain, and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
6
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development
The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-
lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of
the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.
Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into
water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities
and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration will
be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability inherent in
both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned over and cash
received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a reliable and
effective system.
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are decreed only for
agricultural use. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from agricultural
use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those rights that come
from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation has ceased, when
needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable
agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to municipal use as
long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent to do so. The
City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for municipal uses
when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at other times, in a
manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.
2.4.3 Facilities
The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities that are needed to manage the
City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and enhance the City’s ability to meet
demands through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity,
diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that
increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.
Additional storage will be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow
obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet
years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and
reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e.,
environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential environmental
impacts of developing storage along with other associated costs and benefits, and will develop
that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment. Storage
capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel
pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, the
development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
7
3.0 TREATED AND RAW WATER QUALITY
Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality
standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection
that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the
quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived and
maintaining the taste and quality of the City’s treated water. This may include mixing of the
City’s source waters to maintain high water quality and require collaboration with private,
county, state and federal land owners and managers. The acquisition, development, and
management of the City’s raw and treated water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking
Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection and water
treatment.
4.0 USE OF SURPLUS RAW WATER
The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities:
1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw
water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas.
Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of
agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.
Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made
available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. Since the City plans
its water supply system using a 1-in-50 year drought criterion, it typically has significant
quantities of surplus raw water in many years. This surplus water may be available on a year-to-
year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not significantly impair the City’s ability
to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent its surplus supplies at a fair market
price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes
Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the
environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre
River or providing other regional benefits. The City’s surplus supplies come from a variety of
sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These sources include CBT water and shares
in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more suitable and available than others to meet
beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can be used for these other purposes is
dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of water, place of use and other decree
limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should consider, and will likely require
coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other groups. Some uses of the surplus
supplies, such as maintaining an instream flow according to the State’s Instream Flow Program,
may require a change of water rights through the water court process. The City will engage in a
thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing the use of its surplus supplies for these
beneficial purposes.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
8
Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow voluntary contributions from its
ratepayers (i.e., Utility bill “check-off box”) for programs that are designed to support the
following purposes: preserving local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River, or
meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire.
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space
Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado
Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and
implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1
of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the
integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad
range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet
community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support
the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus
agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.
The City will explore long-term rental and sharing arrangements with irrigators10 in order to
support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other benefits provided
by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1.2 Instream Flows
Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream
flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la
Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural streamflows,
the City will seek innovative opportunities to improve, beyond any associated minimum
regulatory requirements, the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its
diversions. The Water Utility will take a leadership role in working with other City departments,
local and regional groups and agencies towards the following objectives in accordance with
Colorado water law and the administration of water rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in
local streams to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the operation of its water supplies and facilities
in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment while meeting
customer demands, and 3) explore projects or measures that would provide flows in streams and
water in reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
4.1.3 Other Arrangements
The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other
entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental
agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners.
These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually
10 The City’s largest irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still
has substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and CBT water that
lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
9
beneficial to the parties and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to the
region.
5.0 REGIONAL COOPERATION
The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with regional entities and
coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that growing Colorado
municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs in a
manner that minimizes negative impacts to agricultural economies and river ecosystems. The
Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in
a manner that respects other interests and provides a culture of innovation.
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers
The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front
Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified,
the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building, sharing capacity and operating
water transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs for greater mutual benefit.
The City has common interests and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the
water districts around Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, as well as other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should
work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies
regarding drought protection, conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.
5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies
The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange
and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the
local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City work closely with these
companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in
local irrigation companies.
5.3 Working with Others
City Departments will work together and also cooperate with local, state and federal agencies,
civic organizations, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when
common goals would benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals
that may involve City water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for
existing and development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river
flows and supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and
sources of revenue for specific goals or projects.
ATTACHMENT 2 B.4.2
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Water Supply Demand Management Policy (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Halligan Project Timeline: Significant Events and City Council Approvals
Acquired interest in enlargement of Halligan Reservoir (Res. 87-
161)
Agreement: with Phantom Canyon Ranch Company
Agreement:
Professional
Studies for
Enlargement
Feasibility Study
Purchase option
Entered option agreement with NPIC to purchase & enlarge
Halligan Reservoir (Res. 93-164)
Resolution 2003-01 NPIC Option. Start Permitting Process
WS&DM Policy (Res. 2003-104)
City Begins
Purchase of
Roberts Ranch
Conservation
Easement as Early
Project Mitigation
(completed in
2004)
Purchase option executed
Permitting agreement (City, Tri-Districts & NPIC)
Project Cost Approval
Federal permitting begins
Common Tech. Platform Instituted
Tri-Districts withdraw
Authorized Evaluation
of Environmental
Impacts
Water Efficiency Plan
Updated
WS&DM Policy
Update (Res. 2012-
099)
NPIC withdraws
Water Efficiency Plan
Updated
Approval: Exception
to Use of Completive
Process for
Professional Services
Purpose & Need
finalized.
Mitigation
development
Authorization to
Execute Project
Agreements (City Mgr.)
Approval:
Exception to the
use of
Competitive
Process Western
EcoSystems
Agreement:
with Northern -
Water Quality
Model Sharing
Approval:
Recreation Use
Lease Agreement
with Landowners
Approval: Contract
Extension for Design
& Construction
Contracts
Draft EIS Released with
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
City Council
Authorized
Eminent Domain
for Phase I
Resolution 2021-027 to
fund USFWS position
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
We are here
Seaman Permitting
Process separated
from Halligan
ATTACHMENT 3 B.4.3
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Project Timeline (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
PROPOSED RIVER CONDITIONS Calloway Diversion StructureRabbit CreekLIVERMOREUS 287North Fork Cache la Poudre RiverHALLIGAN RESERVOIRRed Feather Lakes RdNorth Poudre CanalLone Pine CreekCurrently, portions of the North Fork between Halligan and Seaman reservoirs run dry in reaches due to existing diversion structures and reservoir operations.Calloway Diversion StructureLIVERMOREUS 287North Fork Cache la Poudre RiverHALLIGAN RESERVOIRRed Feather Lakes RdNorth Poudre CanalLone Pine CreekRabbit CreekCURRENT RIVER CONDITIONS NNDry stream reach in winter resulting from current reservoir operations. Outlet gates are closed after irrigation season, and the North Fork is mostly dry until the dam spills in late winter. Minor seepage through closed gates and groundwater provide the only water to this section of river during the winter.Dry stream reach in summer resulting from operation of the North Poudre Canal during the irrigation season. Often, the river's entire flow is diverted into the canal leaving a dry river below.19-20574Enlarged Halligan Reservoir operations would provide flows to the river year-round, which will improve the entire aquatic ecosystem. Stonew
all
C
r
e
e
k
Stonew
all
C
r
e
e
k
North Poudre Canal DiversionStructureNorth Poudre Canal DiversionStructureSEAMAN RESERVOIRSEAMAN RESERVOIRIMPROVED RIVER CONDITIONS BELOW HALLIGAN RESERVOIROutlet works design and operation would improve water quality and temperatures in the North Fork.A Winter Release Plan and Summer Low Flow Plan would ensure year-round flows on the river below Halligan. Flows could be augmented with a temporary environmental pool.Ramping rate limitations would minimize large unnatural fluctuations in flows resulting from reservoir operations.A peak flow bypass would provide critical flushing flows, emulating natural run off conditions. Large, unnatural variations in river flows and temperatures due to dam operations.If the reservoir is enlarged, diversions will be reconstructed to ensure flows can bypass the diversions, eliminating dry summer reaches.Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. V/TDD: 711Esta información puede ser traducida, sin costo para usted. 970-212-2900US
DiverIfthereservoirisenlarged diversionsStructuonsdiersionDivrudrysumummerreachemmdry summer reaches.U
will be reconstructed to ensure th di i li i tiwill ypassonstructed to ensurconillbflowructedtoensuecoRERS2S 8728787Lakes LakesnePineCreonFeatheLonePineCreektherLherrLRReEnlargeH lliReservodrgedHalliganReservoir878728erationswouldprpenswouldprovideepopeopews to the river year round, iver year rounundear-roeryrivndywhich will improve the enimprove thechwillimwhichwmprovetheelleayqcoaquatic ecosANSEAMANNMRESERVVOIRSEAMASEARESERVOIRNN9-20574120from operatiohld ition of ifromfromoperDry stream reach in sun suDrystreamreachiheamreatiMOREUSIVERMORRMOREUSUEUS
wayStructurersion Ssionnummer resultingtingg LIVummerresultingheirrigaCanalduringthienypurrentlyently, poOften, the rler'sentirenal during entireiOften, the river's entireleLonePnePineCreekLCreekCurrently portionsonsotiCtisonasS 2ationseason8787e flow is diverted eflowisdertedeflivkesRdsRdddFeateatheReRedoftheNororthForkbetwbetweenNororkbetwhForkbeeneNorth Fork betand Seaeses due tochyy in reaches due toexisting diversion stng diversiexrsion stxistingdingdivesnd reservoir ooperatandroeratraand reservoir operatda, sinpare available fió dEtceaidiEstainformaciónpuedesertraduganigH llig HalligHalligHaooructuucturesSEAMANSEANRRESERVOVOtions.RESERVOIRtionstioncoston costo parafor persons with disa212 2900ed 970bilities. V/TDD: 711for pswithdisabilirsonswithdes. V/TDD:711ab7sIGAANPONSNDITIOPROPOSEDRIVERCONDITIONSPROPOOSEDRIVPOSPROPERCEDRRIVVEORPHALHALLIGANutletworksdesignandoperatiANeronmenre
ntal pool.erre
tureove water quality andks dwouldimpand operatiOIRsignandopRESERVANrpre RESERVOIgwouldimprovewaterqualityandtemperatures in the North Formperatures in thOIRteSEREe RSldelimitationRampingnspRampingratelimitationswouldApNoNoNortominimize large unnatural ttipnatural nflowminimize largproimitatiorgetlminimizeegvoiroperationsrunons in f om eseresultingowsresultiFog rvoForkinterReleasePlanandn flows resultifromreservoiroperationsrunPlldachFlowldensureyear-roundCacPlan Camentedwithatcouldmporarygan Fgan.FlowsRiehRivall
Structuregan. Flows cmentedwithatemporarywal
versioStwa
onversioon
h PoudreNhPon
orth Poudre s on the river below s on the river bebw year rounya Poswouldeakflowbypasswoldkvide ti tringlde critical flushing lti t loffconditionseuaonsws, muliepee
owayCallowareekeek CayoHALLVEPEDIMPROVEDIIMPROVEDREOMRANALLIGHAGHALLIGANRHALLIGAN RLLIGAHAANRALLILLIGHALNVVTRIVURRECNUNVCURRENTRIVLIGANWOONOEERCONDRIRIVERCONDITIONSBELOWTIONSCONDITSBELITIOOWIONERCNDOOCOTNSRESERVOIRRESERVOIVRRESERVOIRERSRESERVOIRVERVERCONDITIONSVERCONDDITIONSVENDRCONITIONSSNORHALLLLHo dam operatiodutions.duetodamodamopereESERESERNNNohFthFForiver flows and temperaturesuresowsandtemperatons inrivedtempeunnarflttiLtlitiLIGNNLIGANe
rreenviCCr
ERVOIRmreachinwLIGGANGgreservoiroperations.Outletgatesareclosedafteret gates are closed roperations Outleafterter resultingsulting fromreservachOm reafeaorseepageuntilthedamspillsinlatewinter.Minorseepageunrigation season, anth dirrigte inttion season airsogttththrough closed gates and groundwater provide the ywatertothissectionofriverduringthewinterwater provide the end grounprovidetaterdAWnter.noAWachchewoue Ris drenStructurellveSRidreRll C
St taugmsaugmHalliiHawflowlaone
North Poudre flowlaa PoNorthelalaoudreNthPoRabbit Ceeee
CallowayCallATTACHMENT 4B.4.4
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Current and Proposed River Conditions (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.212.2900 V/TDD 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 26, 2019
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Eileen Dornfest, Special Projects Manager
Carol Webb, Utilities, Deputy Director-Water Resources & Treatment Operations
Lance Smith, Utilities Finance Director
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Halligan Water Supply Project Quarterly Update
The purpose of this memo is to 1) inform City Council about the status of the federal permitting
process for the Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan Project” or “Project”); 2) provide
information related to a recently updated Halligan Project cost estimate, and 3) provide
information related to Halligan Project funding.
BOTTOM LINE
1.Status of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”)
The EIS is anticipated to be released by the US Army Corp of Engineers (“The Corps”)
and available for public review before the end of 2019. The EIS public comment period is
expected to last several months and will include an open house in Fort Collins, hosted by
The Corps.
2.Updated Project Cost Estimate
Staff has updated the cost estimate for the Halligan Project. The application of the
estimation methodology indicate that Halligan Project costs could range from $100
million to $150 million, with a probable cost of $120 million. A cost estimate range is
being provided because project risks have been identified that may or may not impact
project costs. Details associated with the updated cost estimate and the estimation
methodology are included in the discussion below. Evaluation of the updated cost
estimate (relative to other regional water projects and other water supply options for Fort
Collins Utilities) indicates that the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir remains the most
cost-effective water storage alternative for Utilities’ customers.
ATTACHMENT 5B.4.5
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
2
3. Halligan Project Funding
The Halligan Project will be funded primarily by Utilities Water Supply Requirements
(WSR). The WSR is a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights by
new and redevelopment to ensure that adequate water supply and associated
infrastructure are available to serve the development’s water needs. Based on the
probable Halligan Project cost. Staff anticipates that the cost to develop a single-family
home in Utilities’ water service area will increase $4,000-$5,000 beyond the proposed
2020 WSR CIL rate. The future WSR CIL rate remains competitive with water supply
costs in the region.
Because the Halligan Project will be funded primarily by the WSR CIL rate, the updated
cost is not expected to significantly change the monthly rate forecast. Future rate
increases are not expected to deviate from the existing rate adjustment strategy.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
A major Project milestone is pending as The Corps nears completion of the Draft EIS for the
Halligan Project. The Draft EIS will describe the environmental impacts of enlarging the existing
Halligan Reservoir, as well as environmental impacts of several alternatives to enlarging
Halligan Reservoir. The Corps plans to release the Draft EIS for public review and comment
before the end of 2019.
Staff developed an outreach campaign for the EIS release and has been engaging with the public,
City Boards and Commissions, and project stakeholders since early 2019.
The public comment period of the Draft EIS is expected to last several months and will include
an open house in Fort Collins, hosted by The Corps. Staff believes that environmental impacts
and benefits of the City’s preferred alternative of enlarging Halligan Reservoir will be presented
accurately and fairly in the Draft EIS. This strengthens staff’s confidence in a positive outcome
for the City.
UPDATED PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Costs of enlarging Halligan Reservoir were last updated in late 2017. A memo describing the
change in cost was provided to City Council in April 2018. (Attachment 1). At that time, the
Halligan Project was facing considerable uncertainty in the federal permitting process. Those
uncertainties caused project delays and prompted staff to initiate a cost study in June 2017. The
2017 estimate was developed with input from a third-party independent construction cost
estimator and focused predominantly on construction costs.
Since 2017, as the Draft EIS has been developed and environmental impacts and benefits of the
Halligan Project have become more understood, staff’s confidence in the City’s preferred
alternative of enlarging Halligan Reservoir has significantly increased. Consequently, staff was
compelled to invest in a more detailed cost estimate for the Halligan Project.
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
3
The application of the estimation methodology indicates that Halligan Project costs could range
from $100 million to $150 million, with a probable cost of $120 million. (shown in Figure 1
below).
Figure 1. Possible and probable range of costs of Halligan Project. All costs shown are in 2019
dollars.
This is an increase of $46 million over the 2017 estimate of $74 million. Key drivers of this cost
increase (shown in Figure 2 below) include:
• Additional knowledge of permitting and design requirements.
• Additional knowledge related to real estate acquisition needs and costs.
• Assignment of costs related to permitting delays.
• Updated environmental mitigation costs.
• Evolving best practices in dam design and construction.
• Identification of project environmental enhancements.
• Development of a risk register that assigns costs to both known and unknown risks given
the conceptual nature of the project at this time.
• More robust estimation of costs associated with project consultants, engineers, and City
staff.
Given the long-term nature of the Halligan Project, the conceptual nature of the Project design,
and the Project’s scope and cost uncertainty, the cost estimate for the Halligan Project will be
presented as a range of probable costs in the future. Also, as noted in previous quarterly updates,
costs are anticipated to change and likely grow as the project scope is refined and permitting
requirements and design are better understood. However, the “probable cost” range presented in
Figure 1 is intended to capture future cost changes.
Costs Related to Risk
Approximately twenty percent of the total cost of the project is related to identified risks;
uncertainties that exist today such as:
• Unknown site conditions
• The condition of the existing dam
• Possible permitting and schedule delays
• Mitigation requirements and enhancement opportunities
• Other similar items that will affect the total cost of the project but cannot be completely
quantified at this point.
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
4
Furthermore, approximately eleven percent of the total cost of the project is related to yet
unidentified risks; unforeseen events or developments that the project will likely encounter but
are not yet known. Best practices in project management include reserving funds to cover both
identified and unidentified risks throughout a project and reducing the total amount of funds
allocated for risk through time, as more information is obtained, and less uncertainty exists in the
project.
The increased cost does not reflect further progression of the dam design. The cost is still based
on an AACE Class 5 estimate, with a range of accuracy of -30% to +100%, which is standard
engineering practice for the conceptual nature of the Halligan Project design. This concept is
portrayed in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Difference between 2017 and 2019 cost estimate for Halligan Project
HALLIGAN PROJECT FUNDING
The Halligan Project will be funded primarily by the future development that is driving the need
for the Project. Funding will be primarily from the Utilities’ Water Supply Requirements (WSR)
with a small amount (less than 15%) funded by the Excess Water Use Surcharge (EWUS) and
customer usage rates. The WSR is a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water
rights by new and redevelopment to ensure that adequate water supply and associated
infrastructure are available to serve the development’s water needs. The EWUS is tied to the
WSR CIL rate and is charged for use of surplus water supplies by existing customers beyond
Notes:
• $19M has been spend to date on
permitting and real estate acquisition.
• The 2019 cost estimate assumes
construction begins in 2024.
• If construction is delayed beyond
2024, increased costs due to
escalation alone are approx. $4M.
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
5
what was provided at the time of development. Both fees are adjusted biennially and are
generally based on the total cost of water supply needs identified in Utilities’ Capital
Improvement Plan.
Staff anticipates the WSR CIL rate will likely increase up to 35% over the planned 2020 rate,
which was presented to Council Finance Committee on August 19. The 35% increase will not
become effective until 2022.
Impact of Rising Project Costs
Based on the projected WSR CIL rate, the cost of water for a new development is also expected
to increase approximately 35% over costs anticipated in 2020.
Figure 3 below shows the current and future cost of water for a new single-family home in
Utilities’ water service area, as compared to other water providers in the region. Other water
providers will likely also see increases in water supply rates as costs for water increase overall in
the region.
Figure 3. Current and projected cost of water for a typical single-family home in Utilities’ water
service area, as compared to other water providers.
The previous Halligan Project estimate of $74M was included in the last update to the Capital
Improvement Plan and Strategic Financial Plan, presented to the Council Finance Committee
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
6
(CFC) in 2017. The updated Project cost will be included in the 2019 Capital Improvement and
Strategic Financial Plans presented to the CFC ahead of the 2021-22 Budgeting For Outcomes
cycle. The 10-year rate and debt issuance forecast will be updated as part of the Strategic
Financial Plan. Because the majority of the cost of Halligan will be paid through the WSR CIL
rate, this updated cost estimate is not expected to significantly change the monthly rate
forecast. Future rate increases are not expected to deviate from the current rate adjustment
strategy that includes limiting annual rate increases to 5% or less.
The cost of water supply projects is increasing across Northern Colorado and elsewhere. Figure
4 shows the cost trends for the Halligan Project as compared to other regional water projects.
Increasing costs are driven by rising permitting and mitigation requirements, increased project
definition through time, more rigorous cost estimating practices, and escalation of costs due to
permitting delays.
As shown in Figure 4, the unit cost of water from Halligan Project remains low relative to other
regional water supply projects.
Figure 4. Evolution of the cost of regional water supply projects. Cost is shown as a unit cost of
water per acre-foot of volume.
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
7
Cost Management and Future Decisions
Staff have limited control over the permitting process or permitting schedule, both of which are
significant cost drivers and dictated by the permitting agencies. Therefore, staff will continue to
focus on cost factors within our control to effectively manage costs and inform future decisions.
The cost management cycle for the Halligan Project includes (Figure 5):
• Using best practices in cost management and calculating updated cost estimates at project
milestones.
• Evaluating the impact of updated costs on development fees and rates for Utilities’
customers.
Updated cost estimates and other decision factors will be evaluated at project milestones to
verify that the Halligan Project remains the most cost-effective water supply alternative for
Utilities’ customers.
If there are any questions about the information provided in this update, please contact Eileen
Dornfest at 970/416-4296 or edornfest@fcgov.com.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Memo re: Halligan Water Supply Project, Updated Costs and Timeline
CC: Water Board
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Linsey Chalfant, Special Projects Manager
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
8
Figure 5. Cost management cycle used for the Halligan Project
ATTACHMENT 5 B.4.5
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Cost Update Memo, August 2019 (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
401 Water Quality Certification – The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reviews and
issues water quality certifications under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act for projects or actions
applicable to the provisions of the Colorado 401 Certification Regulation.
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) – The volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre–foot
can supply water to three to four single-family homes in Fort Collins per year. The maximum volume of
Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-feet and the proposed volume of Halligan would go from about
6,400 acre-feet to approximately 14,500 acre-feet.
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project – A Bureau of Reclamation project operated by Northern Water that
brings water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel and the Big
Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir. Fort Collins Utilities currently owns 6%
of shares in the CBT project. The Halligan Water Supply Project is not designed to store any CBT water.
Corps – Short for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the lead permitting agency for the Halligan Water Supply
Project.
Cubic-Feet per Second (cfs) – The volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic-foot flowing every second.
EIS (DEIS, FEIS) – Short for Environmental Impact Statement (draft or final), a report detailing the
findings of the NEPA permitting process. An EIS can be reviewed by the public and comments are typically
addressed in a final EIS. See also “NEPA.”
Excess Water Use Surcharge – Fees assessed on commercial customers, including some HOAs, who exceed
their annual water allotment.
Firm Yield – A measure of the ability of a water supply system or reservoir to meet water demands through
a series of drought years.
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan – Required by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It is designed to address the
impacts to fish and wildlife due to the development and water diversion associated with a project.
GMA – Short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City of Fort Collins’ future
City limits.
GPCD – Short for gallons per capita per day, a measurement of municipal water use.
LEDPA – Short for Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is what the Corps permits
through the NEPA permitting process. See also “NEPA.”
Larimer County 1041 Permit – State Statutes allow local governments to designate certain areas and
activities of state interest and require permits for development involving those areas and activities. A 1041
Permit is required prior to conducting any activity that has been designated as a Matter of State Interest
(dams, power plants, solar energy power plants, transmission lines, pipelines, etc.).
ATTACHMENT 6 B.4.6
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Glossary of Terms (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Mitigation – The process or result of making something less severe or damaging. Mitigation includes avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts and compensating for unavoidable impacts.
NEPA – Short for National Environmental Policy Act. The act was signed into law in 1970 and requires federal
agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed or permitted actions prior to making decisions.
NISP – Short for Northern Integrated Supply Project, a water project sponsored by Northern Water. The
proposed Glade Reservoir is part of NISP.
Northern Water or NCWCD – Short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Northern Water
operates the Colorado–Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is involved in several other regional water projects on
behalf of their participants, including NISP. See also “Colorado–Big Thompson (CBT) Project” and “NISP.”
NPIC – Short for North Poudre Irrigation Company, an irrigation company that supplies water to farmers
north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in Halligan Reservoir. The City of Fort
Collins currently owns about 36% of the shares in the company.
Planning Demand Level – Water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply planning purposes. The
planning demand level factors into determining the amount of water supplies and/or facilities needed. See
also “gpcd.”
Storage Reserve Factor – Refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing water supply
systems to address short-term supply interruptions. As defined in the WSDMP the storage reserve factor
incorporates having 20% of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought equating to about 3.5
months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 months of summer demands. See also “WSDMP.”
Tri–Districts – The combination of three regional water districts that also serve areas within Fort Collin’s
GMA: East Larimer County (ELCO), Fort Collins–Loveland (FCLWD) and North Weld County Water Districts
(NWCWD). These districts share the same water treatment plant, Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, located
adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility. The Tri-Districts were originally partners in the
Halligan Project but withdrew in 2009. See also “GMA.”
Water Supply Requirement (WSR) – Previously known as Raw Water Requirements, require new or existing
development to turn in water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to support the water needs of that
development or increase existing water allotments. Cash is used to increase the firm yield and long-term
reliability of the City’s supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage capacity). See also “Excess Water Use
Surcharge.”
Water Supply & Demand Management Policy (WSDMP) – This document provides Fort Collins Utilities
guidance in ensuring adequate, safe and reliable water supply while managing water demand.
Yield or Water Rights Yield – Refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water right. The yield of
water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water available (i.e., low or high river runoff)
and the priority of the water right. See also “Firm Yield.”
19-21887Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. V/TDD: 711
Esta información puede ser traducida, sin costo para usted. 970-212-2900
ATTACHMENT 6 B.4.6
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Glossary of Terms (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Presented by:Halligan Water Supply Project UpdateDonnie DustinWater Resources EngineerLinsey ChalfantProject Manager1May 24, 2022ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 100Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Purpose• Update on Halligan Water Supply Project• Water Supply and Demand Background• Project Impacts and Benefits• Status of Permitting and Design• Input from Council2ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 101Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Direction Sought• Does Council have any questions about the Halligan Water Supply Project?• How can we best inform Council in quarterly reports and other communications?3ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 102Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
4LegendHalligan is for Utilities’ water service areaFort Collins Water DistrictsATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 103Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Utilities Water Supply Sources5Cache la Poudre RiverColorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) via Horsetooth Reservoir~50/50 split between sourcesATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 104Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
6Strategic AlignmentWater Supply & Demand Management PolicySafe Community Environmental HealthCity Strategic PlanPoliciesATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 105Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Water Supply Planning CriteriaPlanning Demand Level150 gallons per capita per dayDrought Criterion1-in-50-year droughtStorage Reserve Factor20% of annual demandsWater Supply & Demand Management Policy7ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 106Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
8Water Future StrategiesSustainable and integrated approachConservationPortfolio of ResourcesInfrastructure SecurityCollaborationOngoing Data EvaluationInnovation, Water Quality & EducationPlan for Emergencies Avoid, minimize or offset impactsATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 107Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Portfolio of Resources9City-owned water rights and converted agricultural sharesCBT ownership Storage (including 20% reserve)ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 108Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Storage Available to Provider10With HalliganATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 109Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
11Future Water DemandsAnnual Firm Yield~31,000 acre-feetProjected Demand~38,400 acre-feet2020~143,000 people2065~178,000peopleIncludes large contractual use increases (e.g., breweries, manufacturing)ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 110Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
12Decision PointsImage source: Denver WaterThe Cone of UncertaintyNear-Term StrategyATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 111Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
13Halligan Reservoir EnlargementATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 112Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
14What differentiates Halligan?Proposed Halligan Reservoir~14,600 acre-feetHorsetooth Reservoir~157,000 acre-feet01000200030004000500060007000800090001950195519601964196919731978198219871992199620012005201020152019202420282033Storage Contents (acre-feet)Modeled YearHalligan Reservoir Enlargement Storage Levels (Utilities Portion)Releases that improve flowsReleases during drought periodsATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 113Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
15Why Halligan?Provides a safe, reliable water supply.Most cost-effective option to meet needs. Year-round flows on the North Fork leading to fishery and habitat improvements. Replaces an aging dam.Gravity-fed –no energy or greenhouse gas emissions. Uses existing reservoir instead of building a new one.ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 114Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Impacts• Inundation of wetlands• Seasonal inundation of ¾-mile stream channel• Preble’s meadowjumping mouse habitat• Construction16ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 115Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
17River ImpactsSlight decrease in flows during spring runoff. Slight decrease in flows during spring runoff.Most months, operations would increase flows.ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 116Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Benefits• Ensures year-round flows on North Fork• Reconnects 22 miles of river• Enables fish passage• Improves water temperatures18ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 117Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
19Mitigation ApproachAreas Near HalliganDegraded ResourcesLocal PartnershipHolistic ApproachMitigation GuidingPrinciplesATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 118Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
North Fork Habitat Improvement20• Winter release plan• Summer low-flow plan• Ramping rate limitations• Peak flow bypass program• Temporary environmental pool• Protection of releases• Modify existing diversions• Reestablishment of wetlands and habitat• Mitigation of temporary construction impacts• Post-construction monitoringMitigation ElementsCurrent periodic river conditionsProposed river conditionsATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 119Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Design/Construction• Completed 30% design• Third season of field investigation this summer• Progress to 60% design in 2024• Potential construction in 202621ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 120Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
22Adjacent AlignmentSimilar environmental impactsSame comparative construction costImproved long-term functionality, operations, and maintenancePlan view – looking from topRaise on Existing DamAdjacent AlignmentATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 121Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
23Project Costs• Lasted update in 2019• Updating construction and mitigation costs in 2022• Formal 30% estimate in Q1 of 2023• ~$19,000/acre-foot (@ $150M)Probable CostPossible Cost$100M$150MATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 122Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
24Path ForwardDevelop and Issue Draft EISPublicCommentPeriodPrepare andPublishFinal EISRecord ofDecisionNov. 20192019-20202022-2023(estimated)2025-2026(estimated)Other Permitting (e.g., 401 Cert., Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Plan, County 1041, construction permits)ConstructionPreliminary and Final Design2026-2029(estimated)Scoping, Purpose & Need, Alternatives, Studies, Scoping, Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Studies 2006-2018ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 123Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
Direction Sought• Does Council have any questions about the Halligan Water Supply Project?• How can we best inform Council in quarterly reports and other communications?25ATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 124Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)
QUESTIONS?fcgov.com/halliganATTACHMENT 7B.4.7Packet Pg. 125Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11591 : Halligan Water Supply Project Update)