HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/24/2023 - WORK SESSIONNOTICE:
Work Sessions of the City Council are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month in
the Colorado Room of the 222 Building. Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, however
there is no public participation permitted in a work session.
City Council members may participate in this meeting via electronic means pursuant to
their adopted policies and protocol.
Fort Collins City Council
Work Session Agenda
6:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 24, 2023
Colorado Room, 222 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
How to view this Meeting::
Meetings are open to the public
and can be attended in person
by anyone.
Meetings are televised live
on Channels 14 & 881 on cable
television.
Meetings are livestreamed on
the City's website, fcgov.com/fctv
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 advance notice. Requests for
interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para
personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas
con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la
Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por
favor proporcione aviso previo. Las solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben
realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Meeting agendas, minutes, and archived videos are available on the City's meeting portal at
https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/
While work sessions do not include public comment,
mail comments about any item on the agenda to
cityleaders@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
City Council Work Session
Agenda
January 24, 2023 at 6:00 PM
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
Colorado River Community Room
222 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 PM
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study Report
Results.
The purpose of this item is to discuss results of the ‘Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area: Study Report’ (Report) and determine next steps. This study was a
result of Council’s direction to staff to pursue more regional collaboration between the Fort
Collins Utilities (Utilities) and surrounding water districts. Through interviews and discussions
with Boards/Commissions, and an evaluation of information, numerous matters for improved
collaboration were identified as well as some potential solutions.
2. Urban Forestry Strategy.
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the current state of municipal
forestry and to seek Council feedback around future urban forest strategy and policy
development. Staff will share proposed next steps for the Urban Forest Strategic Plan effort.
3. Land Use Code Audit Related to Forestry.
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the land use code audit as it
relates to tree-related landscape standards and to seek Council feedback on the direction of tree
policy update opportunities that have been identified.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS
D) ADJOURNMENT
Page 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
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 advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day
before.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no
dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que
puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al
970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione aviso previo. Las
solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Page 2
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 4
January 10, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Engineer II
Jason Graham, Director of Water Utilities
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study Report Results.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss results of the ‘Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area: Study Report’ (Report) and determine next steps. This study was a result
of Council’s direction to staff to pursue more regional collaboration between the Fort Collins Utilities
(Utilities) and surrounding water districts. Through interviews and discussions with
Boards/Commissions, and an evaluation of information, numerous matters for improved collaboration
were identified as well as some potential solutions.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions does Council have about the Water Resources Matters Study?
2. What thoughts or direction does Council have about pursuing the next suggested steps?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Regional water issues have become more and more prevalent creating a need for stronger regional
collaboration. Utilities has a history of valuing regional water collaboration and in 2015, City Council
directed staff to further pursue regional collaboration opportunities with surrounding water providers with
the belief that regional collaboration could improve water supply reliability across the growth
management area (GMA). Drivers for regional collaboration include:
Water to support new development is increasingly expensive and complex.
New homes have becoming increasingly unaffordable due to development fees.
Infrastructure maintenance and failures impact multiple water service providers.
Colorado River drought conditions could have significant implications on water providers’ water
supplies.
Page 3
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 4
Regional collaborative efforts include:
Various water treatment, supply, conservation, and infrastructure sharing/sales
agreements (over many years) between the City of Fort Collins (City) / Utilities and other
water providers.
Long-standing (but periodic) meetings with Utilities staff and Soldier Canyon Water
Treatment Authority entities (East Larimer County Water District (ELCO), Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District (FCLWD), and North Weld County Water District (NWCWD)) on
treatment and water resource issues.
Attempt at joint pursuit of Halligan expansion project with ELCO, FLCWD, NWCWD, and
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). ELCO, FLCWD, and NWCWD withdrew in 2009
and NPIC withdrew in 2014).
Starting in 2009, staff began expanding participation in the Sprinkler Checkup Program to
first include FCLWD and then ELCO customers.
In 2016, a committee of water managers and board members from the City, ELCO,
FCLWD, and NWCWD formed to discuss regional collaboration on water-related issues
(known as the Regional Water Collaboration Committee).
In 2018, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization participated in the Growing Water Smart program to work on integrated
water and land use planning issues.
In 2019-2020, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD worked collaboratively on the
Horsetooth Reservoir Outlet Project. Also, the Regional StratOp group was formed to
discuss Northern Colorado water issues with elected officials and leaders from Larimer
and Weld Counties, municipalities, and water providers
Utilities participated in Larimer County’s regional water existing conditions report.
Utilities has and continues to have discussions with Northern Water on Colorado River
drought impacts to the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) system.
In 2021-2022, staff initiated this WRSM Report.
In 2022, staff coordinated with the surrounding water and wastewater districts to expand
the newly adopted graywater codes beyond Utilities water service area.
Goal of Study
The Utilities’ water service area boundary, city boundary, and GMA do not coincide. Utilities’ water
service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins city limits. Utilities supplies water to approximately
75% of residents and businesses in Fort Collins. Water service in the other portions of Fort Collins and
the GMA is provided by other water providers, including six other water districts: ELCO, FCLWD, West
Fort Collins Water District, Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District, and Sunset Water District
(Districts). Significant differences exist about the various water providers in terms of mission,
organizational size, staffing, financial resources, water rights portfolio, and development patterns.
The WRMS was pursued to provide insight on the challenges and opportunities around regional water
providers with the goal of:
Improved understanding of regional water matters and improve alignment across City and Utilities
organizations.
Better understanding of the perspectives of the Districts and other stakeholders working in the
GMA about what it is like to work with the City and Utilities organizations on water-related
matters.
Systematically evaluate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water
service providers in the GMA.
Page 4
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 4
The study involved three phases: 1) Discovery through interviews, surveys and meetings with City staff,
the Water Board (now Water Commission) and external stakeholders in the Districts; 2) Evaluation of
information through a ranking system; and 3) Output of the results and potential solutions.
Results
The City and Utilities felt internal collaboration has been going well. However, the City, Utilities and
Districts felt there is a need for significant improvement between the City/Utilities and Districts regarding
engagement and collaboration.
Listed below are 16 water matters that were identified for a GMA with multiple water providers (Table 3 in
the attached report provides additional detail). The bold represent the most cited categories but also the
most challenging.
Competition of water rights acquisition
Coordination between City and Districts
Customer experience varies
Development review processes and water requirements vary
Education and advocacy not consistent/aligned
City as a customer of the Districts for water service on some City properties
Future water related challenges will evolve and grow
Intergovernmental Agreements challenges
Infrastructure and Service Areas need clarity on size and boundary
Joint programs and projects could expand
Leadership needs increased knowledge of water issues
Mission and values differ
Need increased modeling and analysis
Organizational structures vary in size and resources
Need improved planning and policy alignment
Opportunity for improved system redundancy and resilience within the GMA
Potential solutions
106 potential solutions were identified in the Discovery phase, some which are internal to the City/Utilities
and some that require partnership with the Districts. After evaluation, five “high-benefit” solutions and
three “tactical” solutions rose to the top as solutions to potentially pursue. High benefit solutions range
from requiring low to high resources (staff and financial) and are likely more challenging. Tactical
solutions also range from low to high resources but are more straightforward in approach and can be
initiated and led by the City/Utilities. These are summarized below:
High-Benefit Solutions
Support District strategies to increase raw water storage (where not in contradiction to Council
direction).
Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place if/when it is needed.
Explore establishment of a water bank program to buy raw water rights that can later be
dedicated to help subsidize affordable housing or other community-benefitting projects.
Expand conservation program offerings across the GMA through incentives or shared program
delivery (like the sprinkler checkup program).
Tactical Solutions
Development Review
Page 5
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 4
o Work with Districts to educate and align on development review processes and
expectations for comments and reviews.
o Gather information and develop a handout of District requirements and costs to provide
during the development review process.
Planning & Analysis
o Quantify water impacts of long-range plans.
o Across the GMA, conduct better assessments of future water demands as well as water
supply and infrastructure constraints.
o Include Districts in upcoming City/Utilities projects, when appropriate, such as the 2022-
2023 Xeriscape and Soil Amendment Council Priorities work and the Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy update.
Boards & Leadership
o Regularly attend District board meetings (City staff and/or Council members).
o Recruit individuals with water expertise to run for boards and commissions.
NEXT STEPS
Continue to meet with Districts
o Build more trusting and collaborative relationships
o Improve collaboration on pursuing more challenging high-benefit solutions
Continue involvement with Regional StratOps, Larimer County water supply planning effort, District
boards meetings, and other regional groups
Develop handout of various requirements/costs for development review process
Continue to explore joint conservation efforts and programs
Better coordinate communication and public outreach around drought, especially during water
shortages
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Resources Matters in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area: Study Report
Page 6
Item 1.
1
Page 7
Item 1.
2
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area ................................................................. 3
History of Regional Water Collaboration .................................................................................................. 4
Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration ................................................................................................. 5
Study Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 7
Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Phase 1: Discovery ................................................................................................................................ 7
Phase 2: Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 8
Phase 3: Outputs ................................................................................................................................... 9
Study Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA ................................................... 9
City and Utilities Staff Responses .......................................................................................................... 9
District Responses ............................................................................................................................... 13
Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA .................................... 13
Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA ..................................................................... 18
High-Benefit Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 19
Low-Resource Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 19
Reflections & Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: Stakeholder List
Appendix B: Interview Template
Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation
Page 8
Item 1.
3
Introduction
Overview of Water Service in the Growth Management Area
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) is one of six water service providers currently serving the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area (GMA) (Figure 1). This situation arose from decisions made in the 1950s and
1960s, when property owners in unincorporated areas north and south of Fort Collins requested that
the City extend water service into those areas to facilitate development. The City determined that the
expansion was beyond their financial capabilities and denied the service requests. Therefore, Title 32
special utility districts were formed to provide the services. 1 The City has since annexed or included in
the GMA areas that are now served by other water service providers (City of Fort Collins, 2015).
Figure 1. Water Service in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area
Significant differences exist among the water service providers in terms of mission, organizational size,
staffing, and financial resources. Utilities is currently the largest water provider in the GMA (Table 1).
1 The other water providers are commonly referred to as “the Districts,” even though not all are legally defined as
Title 32 special districts.
Page 9
Item 1.
4
According to the City Plan Trends and Forces Report (City of Fort Collins, 2018), “most of the vacant land
in the GMA is not served by City sewer and water utilities,” meaning that much of the future growth in
the GMA is expected to be served by the other water providers (i.e., Districts).
Table 1. Current Service Population for Water Service Providers That Serve Within the GMA (CDPHE, 2022)
Water Provider 2022 Service Population*
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) 179,901
Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) 51,500
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) 20,503
Northern Colorado Water Association 4,550
West Fort Collins Water District 4,000
Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District 2,120
Sunset Water District 425
* In 2022, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) changed guidance and service population estimates
now include transient populations e.g., people coming into and out of the service area for the day for work). The service
population provided is for the water provider’s entire service territory, not just the portion within the Fort Collins GMA.
History of Regional Water Collaboration
Utilities has a history of valuing regional water collaboration. The 2012 Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy highlights regional collaboration as one of six policy elements (e.g., water use
efficiency, water supply acquisition, water supply reliability, treated and raw water quality, use of
surplus raw water, and regional collaboration) (City of Fort Collins, 2012). The regional collaboration
policy element emphasizes the importance of good relationships with regional entities and the
coordination of efforts to achieve mutual goals where possible.
Significant milestones in regional water collaboration include the following:
• Various water treatment, supply, conservation, and infrastructure sharing/sales agreements
(over many years) between the City and other water providers.
• Long-standing (but periodic) meetings with staff of the City and Soldier Canyon Water
Treatment Authority entities (ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD) on treatment and water resource
issues (informally known as the Regional Water Collaboration Committee).
• In 2015, City Council directed staff to pursue regional collaboration opportunities with ELCO and
FCLWD, including ways to address water supply requirements for affordable housing.
• In 2016-2017, a regional water steering committee was chartered and met, but then dissipated,
seemingly due to lack of progress and staffing transitions.
• In 2018, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
(NFRMPO) participated in the Growing Water Smart program to work on integrated water and
land use planning issues.
• In 2019-2020, Utilities, ELCO, FCLWD, and NWCWD worked collaboratively on the Horsetooth
Outlet Project. Also, the first Regional StratOp meeting was held to discuss Northern Colorado
water issues.
• In 2021-2022, Utilities initiated this study to evaluate water resource matters in the GMA that
arise from having multiple water service providers. Also, Larimer County initiated a regional
Page 10
Item 1.
5
water existing conditions report. A second Regional StratOp meeting was convened by the
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado with representatives from Larimer and Weld
Counties, municipalities, and water providers.
Drivers for Regional Water Collaboration
The City has adopted a broad suite of climate, sustainability, water, and housing goals that sometimes
lead to competing priorities (e.g., increased costs of new water supplies and affordable housing); that
sometimes require coordination among multiple agencies to achieve (i.e., the City reviews and approves
new development but the Districts set water supply requirements and development fees). Utilities, as a
part of the City organization, is better able to support a broad range of objectives, though staff are
mindful that Utilities’ funds are constrained in how they can be used to be “neutral to the ratepayer” as
required in the City’s charter and municipal code (City of Fort Collins, 2022). Districts are more singularly
focused on providing their customers reliable, high quality water service.
Examples of regional water issues that affect the City and Utilities include the following:
• Water to support new development is increasingly expensive and complex. Water supplies
have gotten significantly more expensive over the past ten years (Error! Reference source not
found.). The Colorado Real Estate Journal reports that “[i]n response to high prices and limited
remaining supply, the volume of CBT trades recently has declined. CBT units will continue to be
desirable assets with transfers to municipal use, but the pricing is likely to continue to diverge
from the costs of alternative water sources and from being affordable for new development. In
short, CBT prices are becoming less relevant as the remaining inventory winds down (Colorado
Real Estate Journal, 2020).”
• The cost of water is driving up the cost of development: Water supply costs can constitute a
significant portion of the cost of new development. Utilities recently analyzed typical water
supply costs for different development types and water service providers as part of the water
supply requirements update and reported the following results (City of Fort Collins, 2021b):
o Water supply costs for a typical single-family home in Northern Colorado: $14,900-
$31,700
o Water supply costs for a multi-family development in Northern Colorado: $250,182-
$961,000
o Water supply costs for a 4,300 sq ft office (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern Colorado:
$3,600-$44,000
o Water supply costs for a 2,800 sq ft restaurant (or ¾” commercial tap) in Northern
Colorado: $39,400-$85,000
• Housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable: “Fees for infrastructure, water, and
development review continue to rise as resources become scarcer and development challenges
become more complex. In 2015, the average cost to build a unit of housing was about $278,000,
while today it costs close to $330,000. Median income households can only afford a home priced
at about $330,000. Developers build housing for a profit and thus cannot build new homes for
purchase for less than $330,000 without some form of subsidy (Fort Collins, 2021a).”
• Infrastructure maintenance and failures impact multiple water service providers. Though
water service providers are separate legal entities, they increasingly rely on common water
sources and infrastructure. Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD all rely on a combination of Poudre River
water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project water for their water supplies. When Northern
Water and the US Bureau of Reclamation needed to upgrade the Soldier Canyon Outlet Works
at Horsetooth Reservoir, “several years of coordination were required to make this work
Page 11
Item 1.
6
(Northern Water, 2020).” Potential failures of shared infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) could also
have regional effects.
Figure 2. Water right sales in the Northern Front Range over the past 10 years (Colorado Real Estate Journal, 2020). Green dots
represent Colorado-Big Thompson share transactions; blue dots represent sales of other water rights.
Developers, residents, and businesses are also affected by having multiple water service providers in the
GMA. Developers experience differences in water supply requirements, infrastructure standards, and
costs. Residents and businesses experience differences in water billing rates, customer options, water
restrictions, and more.
Study Overview
Objectives
Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Resources Division staff found they were spending significant time
attempting to address regional water issues as they arose on an ad hoc basis; so, in 2020 Utilities
initiated the Water Resource Matters in the GMA study to:
• Improve understanding of regional water matters and improve alignment across City and
Utilities organizations.
• Better understand the perspectives of District water providers and other stakeholders working
in the GMA about what it is like to work with the City and Utilities organizations on water-
related matters.
• Systematically evaluate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water
service providers in the Fort Collins GMA.
Note that since Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD are the largest water services providers in the GMA, they
were a key focus of the study. Sanitation districts were not a focus of this effort.
Page 12
Item 1.
7
Stakeholder Engagement
Four stakeholder groups were formed to provide direction and gather the input needed to achieve the
study objectives:
• The Utilities project manager met routinely with the consultant team to provide direction on
the day-to-day study execution.
• A core team was formed to serve as an advisory board and provide direction on key decisions.
Core team members included the Utilities project manager and representatives from Water
Resources, Water Conservation, Economic Health Office, and Utilities leadership.
• A City working group was formed, with more than 60 representatives from the City and Utilities,
to provide input through interviews, polling, and large group meetings.
• An external stakeholder group was consulted for input through interviews, polling, and large
group meetings. Representatives included the Fort Collins Water Commission (previously, the
Water Board), Chamber of Commerce (COC) Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC), and staff
and board members affiliated with ELCO, FCLWD, and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment
Authority.
Appendix A contains a list of stakeholders along with their roles in the study.
Approach
Phase 1: Discovery
In the Discovery phase, Brendle Group gathered input from the City working group and the external
stakeholder group through interviews, polling, and large group meetings. An interview template was
developed to illuminate the challenges and opportunities that arise from having multiple water
providers serving the GMA (Appendix B). Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff and seven (7)
representatives from the Districts provided input through a series of 18 facilitated interviews and polling
questions. Additionally, Brendle Group made presentations to and sought input from the Fort Collins
Water Board, ELCO board, FCLWD board, and COC LLAC.
Information collected through the interview, polling, and presentation process was compiled into a
Microsoft Excel-based evaluation framework. The evaluation framework contained:
• Matter Categories: The “matter categories” are topical groupings of the types of water matters
identified in the interviews. The categories are used to group and filter the full register of
matters on the “register of matters” worksheet. Additionally, the “matter categories” worksheet
shows linkages to potential types of solutions.
• Register of Matters: The “register of matters” worksheet contains a compilation from the
interview process, including a unique matter number, a matter category to help filter and sort
distinct types of matters, a matter description, and documentation of the source interviews that
raised the matter. Most matters represent challenges that arise from having multiple water
service providers in the GMA, but occasionally they represent opportunities that arise.
• Solution Categories: Like the matters categories, the “solution categories” represent topical
types of solutions that are used to group and synthesize the full register of solutions.
• Register of Solutions: The “register of solutions” worksheet contains a compilation from the
interview process, including a unique solution number, a solution category, a solution
description, and documentation of the source interviews that raised the solution. Because the
interview content focused more on matters than on solutions, the solution register may be
Page 13
Item 1.
8
incomplete and/or may contain solutions that are infeasible or otherwise undesirable.
Additional research and engagement may be necessary to identify an exhaustive list of solutions
or to further vet the feasibility of identified solutions.
• Case Studies: The “case studies” worksheet compiles examples and case studies that were
mentioned during the interview process as examples from within the City or Utilities
organizations, case studies showing desirable outcomes, or case studies showing adverse
outcomes.
Results from the Discovery phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Current State of
Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA and Matters that Arise from Having Multiple
Water Service Providers in the GMA.
Phase 2: Evaluation
In the Evaluation phase, Brendle Group worked with the core team to develop a scoring rubric to help
evaluate the identified solutions. The scoring rubric considers resource needs, benefits to the City and
Utilities organizations, benefits to external organizations, and benefits to the community (Table 2). Low
score values are associated with undesirable conditions (high resource needs and/or low benefits) and
high score values are associated desirable conditions (low resource needs and/or high benefits).
Table 2. Solution Evaluation Scoring Rubric
Resources
Score Value Description
1 High - needs a new funding and/or hiring strategy for additional investment of staffing and
financial resources
2 Medium - can be accomplished with additional staff time, consultant support, or budget
offer that can be allocated through annual budgeting
3 Low - can be accomplished within existing staff time and operating budgets
Benefits to City/Utilities Organization
Score Value Description
1 Low - Benefits a relatively contained portion of the City and Utilities organization
2 Medium - Benefits most of the City and Utilities organization
3 High - Directly supports City and Utilities achieving currently established strategic goal
Benefits to External Organizations
Score Value Description
1 Low - Helps external organizations be better informed about City and Utilities operations
and initiatives
2 Medium - Opens opportunity for external organizations to be consulted and provide
feedback on City and Utilities operations and initiatives
3 High - Directly related to business operations of external organizations
Benefits to Community
Score Value Description
1 Low - Residents and businesses indirectly benefit from better functioning government and
utility services
2 Medium - Residents and businesses directly benefit within a single service area (e.g., the
Fort Collins Utilities service area)
3 High - Residents and businesses directly benefit across multiple service areas
Page 14
Item 1.
9
Each member of the core team independently ranked the solutions, using the scoring rubric. Scores
were synthesized across core team members, using totals and average values. The solutions that rise to
the top depend on the priorities of the City and Utilities organizations. For example, is the City
interested in low-resource quick wins? Or does the City want to make investments to achieve strategic
outcomes?
Results from the Evaluation phase are discussed in the Study Outcomes section, under Solutions to
Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA. The completed “solution evaluation” is provided as
Appendix C.
Phase 3: Outputs
Study outputs include work products and materials to support City and Utilities staff in understanding
and presenting about water resource matters in the GMA. Key work products and educational materials
are appended to this study report:
• Appendix A: Water Resource Matters Study: Stakeholder List
• Appendix B: Water Resource Matters Study: Interview Template
• Appendix C: Water Resource Matters Study: Solutions Evaluation
Study Outcomes
Current State of Collaboration on Water-Related Matters in the GMA
City and Utilities Staff Responses
Sixty-one (61) City and Utilities staff members provided input via polling. At the time the Water
Resource Matters study was being conducted, significant staffing transitions were occurring in the City
and Utilities, including several long-tenured staff members with a significant amount of institutional
knowledge or history promoting regional water collaboration (Figure 3). As new staff are onboarded, it
will be important to educate them about the issues and opportunities that arise from having multiple
water service providers in the GMA and to transition relationship management with regional partners.
Figure 3. City and Utilities staff polling results: How long have you been with the Fort Collins organization?
Page 15
Item 1.
10
Utilities and City staff reported a moderate impact to their job functions from having multiple water
service providers in the GMA (Figure 4). Multiple departments reported being significantly impacted, all
in the Utilities organization (e.g., Water Resources, Watershed, Water Quality, Water Treatment, Water
Conservation). At least one department in the City organization reported being highly impacted but not
daily (e.g., Social Sustainability).
Figure 4. City and Utilities staff polling results: How much is your job function affected by having multiple water providers in the
GMA?
Almost everyone within the City and Utilities was satisfied with internal collaboration with Utilities
(Figure 5), reporting that Utilities staff serve as excellent resources for answering questions, working
together, and finding creative solutions. It was common for interviewees to comment that being within
the same organization helps collaboration and that continued education on these topics is needed
within and across the organization.
Figure 5. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with Utilities?
Page 16
Item 1.
11
However, City and Utilities staff reported a much lower level of satisfaction in their ability to collaborate
with the Districts (Figure 6). Cited reasons for lower levels of satisfaction include:
• Different organizational structures, mission, values
• Lack of relationships (especially proactive and ongoing, versus as needed or under emergency
conditions)
• Lack of a clear point of contact and/or District responsiveness
• Lack of understanding on District decision-making processes, structures, and timelines
It should be noted that a few departments were satisfied with their interactions with the Districts.
Figure 6. City and Utilities staff polling results: How satisfied are you with your ability to collaborate with the Districts?
City and Utilities staff reported a mix of whether their department has the staffing, budget, and
knowledge needed to effectively address water-related matters now (Figure 7). Most staff expect their
staffing, budget, and knowledge needed to address water-related matters to grow in the future (Figure
8).
Page 17
Item 1.
12
Figure 7.City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you describe your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge
resources to effectively address water-related matters now?
Figure 8. City and Utilities staff polling results: How would you anticipate your department’s staffing, budget, and knowledge
resource needs to address water-related matters changing in the future?
City and Utilities staff report a mix of whether their department has the influence and support needed
to address water-related matters (Figure 9). Staff report that they commonly receive special requests
that they feel pressured to solve, even if the requests are technically outside of the purview of the City
or Utilities. Also, because these requests lack a standardized response process, they take significant staff
time to review and formulate a response. Staff expressed that they lack a clear understanding of who is
the City’s decisionmaker in regional water matters, what the desired ultimate outcome is, and what
tradeoffs the City and Utilities may be willing to make. Staff worry about potential negative blowback on
the City and Utilities when developers and residents experience “unexpected surprises.” Staff expressed
appreciation for the Water Resource Matters study, liked being included in interviews, and think now is
the time to address regional water matters.
Page 18
Item 1.
13
Figure 9. City and Utilities polling results: Do you feel your department has the influence and support needed to address water-
related matters?
District Responses
Seven staff members from the Districts (ELCO (2), FCLWD (3), Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority
(2)) provided input via polling questions. A summary of responses received from provider staff are
contrasted with responses received from City and Utilities staff in Figure 10. A few takeaways include:
• On average, polling results show District staff reported being more affected by having multiple
water service providers in the GMA than City and Utilities staff did.
• District staff and City/Utilities staff report similarly neutral feelings about their ability to
collaborate with each other – leaving significant room for improvement.
• District staff, on average, report a lower level of satisfaction with the engagement and support
they receive from the City.
• District staff, on average, report a neutral-to-negative opinion about working in the Fort Collins
GMA compared to other jurisdictions.
Figure 10. Polling results: Comparing District staff input with City/Utilities staff input
Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA
Through the Discovery phase, Brendle Group identified and cataloged 167 distinct water-related
matters, grouped into 16 categories (Figure 11). Dark blue boxes in Figure 11 represent the matter
categories that contain the most frequently cited matters (i.e., the most common matters).
Page 19
Item 1.
14
Figure 11. Matter Categories (dark blue boxes denote matter categories with the most cited matters)
Table 3 includes a brief description of each matter category as well as a few examples of matters that
fall within the category.
Table 3. Matters that Arise from Having Multiple Water Service Providers in the GMA
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Competition Water rights are scarce,
competitive, expensive.
Water rights are scarce, so the market is
sometimes cooperative but often competitive
and challenging to navigate, especially in water
court. Scarcity affects the Districts’ ability to
acquire new rights, primarily via dedication
from developers. The Districts have expressed
some concern that the City (especially Natural
Areas) will use its resources to outbid the
Districts in water right acquisitions.
Prices are increasing – C-BT Project units are the
most expensive, followed by North Poudre
Irrigation Company shares, and then other
Poudre basin ditch and reservoir shares.
Water court proceedings are inherently full of
conflict and can impact organizational
relationships.
Page 20
Item 1.
15
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Coordination City relationships with the
Districts vary. The City
cannot control whether
Districts take an active
(collaborate) or passive
(inform) role.
Different departments interface with different
Districts, even beyond the GMA boundary.
Fort Collins can give the impression of deciding
on and delivering the message, and then forcing
alignment with the Districts, rather than
engaging in authentic collaboration.
Customer
Experience
Customers have different
experiences across water
service providers (Utilities
and the other Districts)
It is challenging to align communications and
campaigns with exactly the right audience.
Customers receive the same bill inserts
regardless of which combination of services
they receive from the City.
Residents across the GMA have different water
conservation incentive opportunities based on
their water service provider.
Development The City has land use
authority across the GMA,
yet development review
and approval processes,
standards, and fees vary
across water service
providers.
Because a single provider does not serve the full
GMA, it opens the door to special requests.
Developers pressure City staff to solve problems
that arise from differences across providers.
Differing fees and standards confuse City staff,
developers, and contractors.
District water supply requirements make
innovative and affordable housing approaches
time consuming and unpredictable to get to
approval.
City as a Customer City departments as a
major water user must
navigate the cost and
service differences across
providers.
City properties, especially parks and natural
areas, are situated in District service areas.
The City irrigates newly planted trees (using
trucked water pulled from hydrants) and almost
1,000 acres of parks. The City is a paying
customer of potable water service providers
(~20% of park use) and raw water suppliers
(~80% of park use).
Education &
Advocacy
There is a need to educate
the public on water
resource matters in the
GMA.
Turf conversion incentive programs are
becoming more common beyond Utilities’
service area. For example, Northern Water now
offers a landscape transformation program.
Page 21
Item 1.
16
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
The public and developers are increasingly
accepting of low water using landscapes and
other water conservation measures.
Future Challenges Water related matters will
grow and evolve in the
future.
Staff are not sure how to manage future water
requests from surrounding communities since
Fort Collins has more senior and reliable water
rights than other communities.
Development in northwest Fort Collins has not
been an issue to date, but development may
increase in the future.
Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGAs)
The City/Utilities and
Districts formally work
together through IGAs.
Utilities provides water services (treatment
and/or supplies) under various IGAs (e.g., ELCO,
FCLWD, WFCWD).
Utilities ends up serving as a peaking plant for
FCLWD, especially in summer. This results in
operational complexity for staff and hidden
energy costs for the City.
City labs provide water quality testing for other
Districts under a fee-for-service model.
Infrastructure &
Service Areas
Providing water service
requires infrastructure.
Provider operations impact
each other due to common
water sources,
infrastructure proximity,
etc.
Service boundaries are not always clear. Staff
time is wasted on figuring out which District(s)
can serve customers, especially when on the
boundary.
It is difficult to properly size infrastructure
because of changing water use patterns. Water
service providers do not want to undersize or
oversize infrastructure or leave infrastructure
unused.
Infrastructure from various organizations exists
in proximity, which causes issues during
maintenance and construction. Denser
development plans are exacerbating this issue.
Joint Programs &
Projects
The City/Utilities and
Districts work together on
some program and
projects.
Utilities provides staff time to offer the sprinkler
check-up program across the GMA, and the
Districts reimburse Utilities for the program.
Revenues go back into the water fund.
Utilities and the Districts coordinate on river
operations, as they are diverting at the same
time under different water rights.
Page 22
Item 1.
17
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Leadership City Council and staff may
have limited understanding
of regional water issues.
City leadership and staffing changes make it
difficult to institutionalize foundational
knowledge of water matters and maintain
strong relationships with the Districts.
Elected Council member positions have minimal
requirements, none of which relate to water,
which means that Councilmembers may have
little knowledge of water matters.
Mission & Values The City/Utilities and
Districts have different
organizational missions
and values.
As water service providers, Utilities and the
Districts are in some cases more aligned than
are the City and Utilities. The providers’ top
priority is to maintain reliable and high-quality
water for current and future customers.
Modeling & Analysis The City can do a better job
of including more detailed
technical analysis and
modeling of water matters
in City plans and
operations.
City plans have not historically included much
water-related technical analysis.
Utilities has a long-term planning model but not
a more real-time operations model to guide
operational decisions. Models cover Utilities
service area rather than city boundaries or
GMA.
Organizational
Structure and
Resources
The City/Utilities and
District organizations vary
in size and resources.
Projects involving the Districts are a complexity
and resource multiplier for the City.
As smaller organizations, Districts have fewer
financial and staffing resources.
Districts have independent, politically elected
boards whose members have different
personalities, leadership styles, and objectives.
Planning & Policy
Alignment
The City/Utilities and
Districts have different
plans and policies at play in
the GMA.
Perception that water supply requirements may
not be keeping up with water use and
development trends.
City staff are responsible for municipal code
enforcement. The water waste ordinance lives
in Chapter 26, which is specific to Utilities’
service area.
Districts deal with more than one land use
authority. Aligning with the City may cause
misalignment with other City and county
authorities.
Page 23
Item 1.
18
Matter Category Category Description Example Matters
Resilience Having multiple providers
in the GMA creates
opportunities for water
system redundancy and
resiliency.
Interconnects between water service providers
support operations such as emergency water
exchanges when needed.
Climate change impacts will affect water
availability and service levels, water uses and
levels, and operations for all providers.
Hazards (e.g., wildfires) and damages are
increasing in the Poudre watershed, but there
are decreasing resources to address the
impacts. Joint projects benefit all providers that
use a common water source such as the Poudre.
Solutions to Improve Water-Related Matters in the GMA
Like the identification and cataloging of water-related matters in the GMA, Brendle Group also
documented 106 potential solutions identified during the Discovery phase in the evaluation framework
(Appendix C). The solutions were grouped into categories, some of which are internal to the
City/Utilities and some which require partnership with the Districts.
Solution categories that apply within the City and Utilities:
• Organizational Structures and Resources: Align organizational structures and allocate resources
to effectively address regional water matters.
• City Operations, Plans, and Policies: Address regional water matters in all relevant operations,
models, plans, policies, and standards.
• Education: Educate staff, leadership, elected officials, developers, and utility customers to
elevate awareness and understanding of regional water matters.
• Infrastructure and Service Area Resilience: Manage the service area and infrastructure to
improve regional efficiency and resiliency, where feasible.
Solution categories that apply in partnership between the City/Utilities and the Districts:
• Account/Relationship Management: Foster proactive, frequent, transparent communication
between the City and the Districts, at the staff and Board/Council levels.
• Planning and Policy Alignment: Align policies and standards across the GMA, where feasible.
• IGAs: Use formal agreements (IGAs) to clarify roles and responsibilities on joint projects.
• Joint Programs and Projects: Build up the portfolio of joint projects, where applicable.
• Advocacy: Identify regional water needs and advocate together.
• Central or Regional Authority: Create a regional water authority or work together through
existing regional entities.
• Water Sharing & Banking: Establish new models for water banking or sharing of water
resources.
The following sections present two sets of recommended solutions that represent high-benefit solutions
and low-resource solutions, respectively, based on the scoring evaluation process described in Phase 2:
Evaluation. The full register of solutions is included in the evaluation framework in Appendix C.
Page 24
Item 1.
19
High-Benefit Solutions
• Support District strategies to increase raw water storage (where not in contradiction to Council
direction).
• Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place if/when it is needed.
• Explore establishment of a water bank program to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated
to help subsidize affordable housing or other community-benefitting projects.
• Exempt some water provider projects from potential 1041 permitting regulations.
• Expand conservation program offerings across the GMA through stacked incentives or shared
program delivery (like the sprinkler checkup program).
Low-Resource Solutions
• Development Review
o Work with Districts to educate and align on development review processes and expectations
for comments and reviews.
o Gather information and develop a handout of District requirements and costs - to provide
during the development review process.
• Planning & Analysis
o Quantify water impacts of long-range plans.
o Across the GMA, conduct better assessments of future water demands as well as water
supply and infrastructure constraints.
o Include Districts in upcoming City/Utilities projects, such as the Water Efficiency Plan Update
and the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update.
• Boards & Leadership
o Regularly attend District board meetings (City staff and/or Council members).
o Recruit individuals with water expertise to run for boards and commissions.
Reflections & Recommendations
The City has been providing reliable water service since 1882. The City ‘s 2022 Strategic Plan (City of Fort
Collins, 2022) reinforces this commitment through strategic goals to provide and maintain reliable utility
services and infrastructure that directly preserve and improve public health and community safety (SAFE
5.5) and to provide a resilient, reliable, and high-quality water supply (ENV 4.4). Even in the face of
population growth and water stress from a changing climate, these strategies are implemented through
watershed protection, long-term storage, balancing water supplies and demands, meeting evolving
regulatory standards, and recognizing that water is a finite resource. All these strategies benefit from
regional water collaboration between the City/Utilities and the Districts.
In addition to the Water Resource Matters study, Fort Collins has been contributing to other important
regional water collaboration efforts. Fort Collins can leverage existing efforts for building organizational
relationships and identifying water-related matters that are more amenable to regional collaboration:
• The South Platte Basin Roundtable, which focuses on identifying projects and processes to close
the gap between projected water supplies and demands. Fort Collins participates in the
Roundtable.
• The Community Foundation of Northern Colorado convened Regional StratOp conversations
that included Larimer and Weld Counties, communities, and water service providers. Fort Collins
and the Districts participated in the May 16, 2022, meeting.
• Larimer County completed a foundational project to establish regional water existing conditions
and will likely continue with water planning efforts and collaboration in the future. Fort Collins
Page 25
Item 1.
20
staff reviewed the existing conditions report and participated in a public open house. The
Districts were also invited to review the report and attend the open house.
• The Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board and Open Lands Advisory Board worked to
bridge agricultural-municipal water use and promote water-sharing pilots. Fort Collins and the
Districts lease surplus water to the agricultural sector. Water sharing between agriculture and
municipal uses is a regional issue.
• The “Poudre Runs Through It” group brings together diverse stakeholders who have a vested
interest in the Poudre River. Fort Collins and District staff participate in this group.
• Northern Water started a regional water efficiency program in 2018 for all allottees. Fort Collins
and the Districts’ residents and businesses are eligible for these programs since they all own C-
BT Project units.
New staff, some of whom may not be familiar with Colorado water issues and/or having multiple service
providers in the GMA, are joining the City and Utilities in leadership roles. City and Utilities leaders need
to be educated about regional water issues, as well as understand Utilities’ and Districts’ water
resources portfolios and needs, so they have the context needed to provide direction to staff about the
scope of engagement, desired outcomes, and willingness to make tradeoffs to support regional water
outcomes. New staff bring fresh perspectives and as the City/Utilities organization rebuilds, there may
be an appetite to engage in new ways to address regional water matters.
The City and Utilities are working on key projects where regional water collaboration would be
beneficial, including water supply adequacy determinations, the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy update, the Water Efficiency Plan update, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, and
potential annexation. Each project can be viewed as an opportunity to improve the understanding of
water matters across the GMA and to strengthen relationships with the Water Districts.
Regional water issues are complex. Piloting solutions incrementally may be more effective than trying to
implement all solutions and tackle all water matters (e.g., affordable housing projects, education, and
training efforts) at once. Initial solutions should address a shared purpose and goals between the
City/Utilities and water service providers - to build trust and establish a successful foundation for future
collaboration endeavors.
The Water Resource Matters study focused on regional water issues from the water utility perspective.
Breaking down silos between these utilities within the City/Utilities organization, as well as fostering
regional collaboration with the Districts, support industry best practices around integrated water
resources management (also known as One Water). Utilities recently underwent a One Water
organizational assessment, which may help break down silos, and increase alignment and collaboration
for the benefit of regional water, wastewater, and stormwater issues, along with community resilience.
Page 26
Item 1.
21
References
City of Fort Collins. (2012). Resolution 2012-099 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Adopting a
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. Fort Collins. Retrieved Nov 19, 2021, from
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/wsdm-policy.pdf?1608579448.
City of Fort Collins. (2015, Jul 14). Water Supply Planning in the Growth Management Area.
https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=2518928&dt=AGENDA+ITEM&doc_download
_date=JUL-14-2015&ITEM_NUMBER=01.
City of Fort Collins (2018). https://ourcity.fcgov.com/560/widgets/4617/documents/2046
City of Fort Collins. (2020). 2022 Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/files/22-24167-
2022-strategic-plan-web.pdf?1657127490.
City of Fort Collins. (2021a). Housing Strategic Plan. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/0203-20201-
adoption-draft-housing-strategic-plan.pdf?1612539185.
City of Fort Collins. (2021b, Nov 2). Agenda Item Summary: First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2021,
Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Miscellaneous Water Fees and
Charges, Including the Water Supply Requirement Fee. Ordinance 10824 - Utility Rates - Water Supply
Requirements ORD (fcgov.com).
City of Fort Collins. (2022). Article XII. Municipal Public Utilities, Section 6. Municipal utility rates &
finances.
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=FOCOCH_ARTXIIMUPUUT
_S6MUUTRAFI.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). (2022). Web Drinking Water Info.
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/18DpQAMm-riBo5DfqEUCgDqMspPPhu-
Ul/page/q5Fz?params=%7B%22df12%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE
%2580%2580A%22,%22df5%22:%22exclude%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2
580Non-
Public%22,%22df24%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580NIT
RATE%22,%22df27%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580No%
22%7D.
Colorado Real Estate Journal. (2020, Aug 31). Northern CO needs new water market benchmarks.
https://crej.com/news/northern-co-needs-new-water-market-benchmarks/.
Northern Water. (2020, Nov 5). Northern Water, Reclamation Complete Soldier Canyon Dam Work.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/soldier-canyon-complete.pdf?1605024566.
Page 27
Item 1.
Appendix A: Stakeholder List
Page 28
Item 1.
Name Title Organization Department/Division Type Role
Meagan Smith Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Resources Division internal project manager
Liesel Hans Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal core team
Donnie Dustin Utilities Water Resource Manager Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Susan Smolnik Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Tony Spencer Water Resources Engineer Fort Collins Utilities WRTO, Water Resources Division internal City working group
Mariel Miller Interim Water Conservation Manager Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal project manager (back up)
Abbye Neel Water Conservation Sr Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team internal core team
Eric Olson Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Katie Collins Lead Technician Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Kelly Doyle Water Conservation Assistant Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Alice Conovitz Water Conservation Analyst Fort Collins Utilities CC, Water Conservation Team internal City working group
Kurt Friesen Director City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Suzanne Bassinger Engineer City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Matt Day Sr Architect, Landscape City of Fort Collins CS, Park Planning internal City working group
Cameron Gloss Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Ryan Mounce Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Kelly Smith Planner/Sr Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, City Planning internal City working group
John Stokes Interim Director City of Fort Collins CS - Community Services internal City working group
Julia Feder Manager, Environmental Planning City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Jen Shanahan Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Bernadette Kuhn Planner City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Dave Myers Manager/Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Natural Areas internal City working group
Jill Oropeza Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Quality Services Division internal City working group
Richard Thorp Lead Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group
Jared Heath Specialist Fort Collins Utilities Watershed Program internal City working group
Mark Kempton Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations internal City working group
Ken Morrison Manager, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group
Ross Lamb Supervison, Plant Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Treatment & Operations / WTF internal City working group
Kelly DiMartino Deputy City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal core team
Darin Atteberry City Manager City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group
Tyler Marr Deputy Director City of Fort Collins City Manager's Office internal City working group
Eric Potyondy Asst City Attorney (Water Attorney)City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group
Carrie Daggett City Attorney City of Fort Collins City Attorney's Office internal City working group
Mike Calhoon Director City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Robert Crabb Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Jill Wuertz Sr Specialist City of Fort Collins CS, Parks
Kendra Boot Sr Manager City of Fort Collins CS, Parks, Forestry internal City working group
LeaAnn Haisch Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Kevin Williams Sr Supervisor City of Fort Collins CS, Parks internal City working group
Paul Sizemore Interim Deputy Director, PDT, CDNS City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS - Community Development & Neighborhood Services internal City working group
Dean Klinger Deputy Director, PDT City of Fort Collins PDT internal City working group
Meaghan Overton Sr Planner (new Housing Manager)City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Rebecca Everette Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Clark Mapes Planner City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Rich Anderson Sr Manager City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review internal City working group
Russ Hovland Supervisor City of Fort Collins PDT, CDNS, Building & Development Review
Dave Betley Manager, Civil Engineering City of Fort Collins PDT, Engineering internal City working group
Josh Birks Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Economic Health internal City working group
Lucinda Smith Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Michelle Finchum Interim Manager, Env Sustainability City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Clay Frickey Redevelopment Program Manager City of Fort Collins Economic Health/Urban Renewal Authority internal core team
Lindsay Ex Interim Housing Manager City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group
Katy McLaren Lead Climate Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Environmental Services internal City working group
Sue Beck-Ferkiss Lead Specialist City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services (Aff Housing Task Force)internal City working group
Beth Sowder Director City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services, Social Sustainability internal City working group
Theresa Connor Interim Executive Director Fort Collins Utilities Utilities internal City working group
Matt Fater Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Engineering)internal City working group
Andrew Gingerich Interim Deputy Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
Wes Lamarque Engineer Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering Development Review internal City working group
Wes Watkins Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
James Carder Manager, Water Field Operations Fort Collins Utilities Water Engineering & Field Services (Field Services)internal City working group
Mark Cassalia Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Accounts internal City working group
Gretchen Stanford Manager (Soon to be Interim Deputy Director)Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Public Engagment internal City working group
Lori Clements Sr Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Customer Care & Technology (CCT)internal City working group
Diana Royval Manager Fort Collins Utilities Customer Connections, Communications and Marketing internal City working group
Jason Graham Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Reclamation & Biosolids internal City working group
Ken Sampley Director Fort Collins Utilities Water Utility Engineering (Stormwater/Floodplain/Dev Review)internal City working group
Lance Smith Director Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Joni Crist Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Jill White Utilities Rate Analyst Fort Collins Utilities Utility Finance internal City working group
Mike Schied General Manager ELCO staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Randy Siddens District Engineer ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Melissa Tremlling Adminsitrative Manager ELCO Staff East Larimer County Water District external external stakeholders
Chris Matkins General Manager FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders
Brittany Lamb FCLWD staff Fort Collins-Loveland Water District external external stakeholders
Richard Raines Water Resources Manager Tri-Districts Tri-Districts external external stakeholders
Chris Harris Treatment Manager Soldier Canyon Water Treatment AuthorityTri-Districts external external stakeholders
Fort Collins Executive Lead Team internal internal stakeholders
Fort Collins Water Commission external external stakeholders
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Commitee external external stakeholders
ELCO Board external external stakeholders
FCLWD Board external external stakeholders
Page 29
Item 1.
Appendix B: Interview Template
Page 30
Item 1.
Water Resource Matters in the Growth Management Area
XXX Interview, MMM DD, HH-HH
Interview Partici pants
List here
Pr oject Background
This study aims to illuminate the challenges , opportunitie s, and barriers that arise from
having multiple water providers serving the Gr owth Management Area (GMA). As you
participate in t his interview , please consider the interactions and dynamics that arise
internally between the City organization and Fort Collins Utilities, as well as externally
between your department and other water providers.
Interview Prepar ation
Ahead of your inter view, please think about the follow ing questions:
• What challenges and opportunities have you seen or experie nced from having
multiple water providers in the GMA ?
• How do water matters relate to your department’s goals an d objectives?
Interv iew Ground Rules
• This interview is our major opportunity to speak in detail so please give us as much
information as you can.
• We intend to record the interview for notetaking purposes only – the recordings will
not be shared outside of the advisory team.
• While y our input will inform the study findings, we don’t intend to attribute input or
findings to specific individuals. Findings may be summarized by department.
• We’ll ask you to answer a few polling questions in ad dition to open -ended questions.
• We ask for honesty and transp arency, even about sensitive and challengin g topics.
• You’ll be given the opportunity to engage in the study again through 2 large group
meetings at project milestones and by review ing substantive study deliverables.
• You can contact Meagan S mith or Amy Volckens at any time to provide additional
input or ask questions.
Page 31
Item 1.
Interview Questions
Part 1: Team & Project Introductions (10 min)
Part 2: Scope Identification (15 min)
• What functions of your department involve water-related matters? Please consider
both day-to-day and lon g-term planning functions.
• What situations has your department faced from having multiple water providers in
the GMA?
• Which water prov iders does your department interact with ? How would you
characterize the in teractions (frequenc y, importance, tone, etc .)?
• In your department’s work on the city’s strategic objectives (e.g., affordable housing,
climate action, sustainability goal s), what water -related matters emerge?
• Do water matters present opportunities or barriers in achieving your department ’s
goals and objectives ?
Part 3: Opportunity and Barrier I dentifi cation (25 min)
• When your department is w orking on water -related matters:
• What would you like to preserve?
• What would you like to achieve?
• What would you like to avoid?
• What do you see changing in the future?
• What solutions should the City and Utilities organizations consider?
Part 4: Interview Closing and Project Lookahead (10 min)
• Please share any writte n responses you’ve prepared.
• How can this project help you r department?
• What would yo u want to know from other project participants?
• Are you aware of leading cities o r best practices that w e should consi der?
• Are there any questions you would like to go back to, or any final comments?
Part 5: Po lling Questions (10 min)
• We'll ask you to navigate to menti.com, enter a code, and answer 7 short questions.
Page 32
Item 1.
Appendix C: Solutions Evaluation
Page 33
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
5-n City Plans and Policies
Exempt FCU and other water providers from potential 1041 permitting
regulations. The City has been working on 1041 regulations as a more
comprehensive review process to the more routinely used site plan advisory
review (SPAR) process.2.50 2.81 2.79 2.01 2.53 2.53 2.57 2.71 2.69 40.00
11-a Modeling and Analysis Apply metrics to long-range planning to analyze and characterize water impacts.2.25 2.78 2.50 2.19 2.43 2.43 2.28 2.64 2.50 38.00
14-a
Resilience / Water Sharing &
Banking
City supports District strategies to increase available storage for dry-years (e.g.,
CBT carryover program, store water in gravel pits, NISP, etc.) where not in
contradiction to Council direction.2.38 2.30 2.71 2.30 2.42 2.42 2.39 2.28 2.62 38.00
5-h City Plans and Policies
Consider Districts in Water Supply and Demand Management Policy update to
clarify review and approval processes, clarify how FCU should support the
Districts, and allocate adequate staff and financial resources to handle requests
outside of FCU service area. 2.25 2.41 2.21 2.23 2.27 2.27 2.29 2.41 2.29 37.00
6-k Coordination and Communication
Require City council members (especially members whose wards overlap District
service areas) or other senior city staff to regularly attend District board meetings. 2.50 2.31 2.10 2.11 2.26 2.26 2.40 2.28 2.15 37.00
5-g City Plans and Policies
Consider Districts in Water Efficiency Plan update to emphasize regional delivery
of conservation programs and goals, to support allocating adequate staff and
financial resources to handle requests outside of FCU service area.2.13 2.02 2.27 2.55 2.24 2.24 2.26 2.16 2.30 37.00
7-c Education
Develop a "decision tree" handout for development review with important District
info, to include the right info in development review letters, and help avoid
developers being surprised. Get District info about what info is provided for their
service area. Could include water supply requirements, impact fees, conservation
programs. Assess FCU and District websites and how accessible this info currently
is. 2.38 2.55 2.49 2.55 2.49 2.49 2.23 2.53 2.53 36.00
11-b Modeling and Analysis
Conduct better analysis and estimation of water demands of new development
across the GMA to inform long-range land use changes and proactively identify
water supply and infrastructure constraints. For example, further investigate
ELCO's water supply needs as the District service area that has the potential for
the most greenfield development. The ongoing CWCB/CSU project is developing a
tool to estimate raw water needs for different development types for ELCO and
FCLWD. FCU also has a demand modeling tool that could be integrated with the
Districts' tools (once available). 2.13 2.52 2.46 2.26 2.34 2.34 2.12 2.45 2.44 36.00
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
Page 1
Page 34
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
13-a Planning and Policy Alignment
City to work with Districts in developing strategic & master plans to ease demands
and special requests on City staff. City needs to stay aware of how master plans
they create impact the cost of development in other utilty service areas. This will
allow anticipation of impacts to the development community across the GMA.2.13 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.15 2.15 2.20 2.21 2.22 36.00
15-a Water Sharing and Banking
Establish a water bank to buy raw water rights that can later be dedicated to
subsidize affordable housing or other equitable development projects. There are
legal considerations to a program like this.2.25 2.03 1.91 2.40 2.15 2.15 2.31 2.10 2.09 35.00
5-p City Plans and Policies
Increase trust and collaboration through inclusive and authentic engagement of
Districts in City planning efforts. Where plans affect District service areas, Districts
should be invited to the planning process as a key stakeholder. City's outreach
approach should be more proactive and collaborative and accommodate District
specific water focus (versus general public engagement) and preferences for
participation (staff vs Board level). 2.00 2.25 2.41 1.83 2.12 2.12 2.07 2.31 2.33 35.00
8-e
IGAs / Coordination and
Communication
Develop an emergency plan IGA to have in place when it is needed (water supply
disruptions, fire flows, etc). At times, emergency situations provided opportunities
to innovate. Success in coordinating well on emergency situations may lead to
better collaboration on longer-range items. Include terms for testing
interconnects and other preventative maintenance activities. 1.63 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.08 2.08 1.81 2.19 2.19 35.00
12-m
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Fund a joint fellow or staff member to design a community-wide water
coordination program (possibly funded by COVID recovery and/or foundations).2.25 2.53 2.47 2.41 2.42 2.42 2.17 2.39 2.38 34.00
12-e Joint Programs and Projects
Can City model of Natural Areas supplementing Utility conservation programs be
applied to other District service areas (ideally within the GMA only), such as a
piggyback rebates?2.38 1.92 2.16 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.27 2.02 2.15 34.00
10-b Joint Programs and Projects
FCU could administer a XIP program like the sprinkler checkups which are offered
outside the GMA as long as all hard (rebates) and soft (staff time) costs are
reimbursed. Not sure if this idea has been discussed with the Districts before. 2.25 2.16 2.05 2.43 2.22 2.22 2.26 2.15 2.14 34.00
4-d City Operations
Limit turf to recreational fields and limit supplemental irrigation to greatest extent
possible in parks. Application rate is 2 ac-ft/ac-yr through waterwise design
principles. 2.38 2.42 1.97 1.97 2.19 2.19 2.25 2.34 2.09 34.00
10-a Joint Programs and Projects
Actively engage the Districts to align their conservation programs with FCU and
expand across their full service areas. PRPA's Efficiency Works could serve as a
good model. 2.25 2.28 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.22 2.22 2.08 34.00
Page 2
Page 35
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
6-b Coordination and Communication
City meet with District staff to educate about development review processes and
timelines and better communicate rounds of review and deadlines. City to also
develop a better understanding of District development review processes, to
better advise developers 2.63 2.08 2.09 1.85 2.16 2.16 2.46 2.09 2.09 34.00
5-q City Plans and Policies
Invest in regional and integrated approaches for all water-related matters (i.e.,
One Water) that consider a broad range of co-benefits and trade-offs (e.g., mutual
parks/recreation, land use and other co-benefits). Begin with internal alignment,
then eventually work to expand across the GMA. Alternatively, work first towards
regional collaboration with all surrounding municipal providers who face similar
challenges, then move to working with the Districts as single-purpose
organizations.1.63 2.45 2.13 2.15 2.09 2.09 1.72 2.41 2.17 34.00
6-g Coordination and Communication
Develop a more formalized/regular process to improve alignment between
City/FCU and Districts on long-range water planning issues (two-way
communication) and build relationships.2.13 2.14 2.16 1.93 2.09 2.09 2.07 2.16 2.16 34.00
12-d
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Increase outreach and recruitment to encourage knowledgeable representatives
to run for and serve on District boards and the FC Water Commission (ex. Nick
Armstrong on Box Elder board)2.38 2.55 2.37 2.16 2.36 2.36 2.25 2.36 2.22 33.00
5-b City Plans and Policies
Include District Boards as direct stakeholders in discussions about Land Use Code
amendments. All development projects must conform to Land Use Code,
irrespective of the water provider. The forthcoming Land Use Code updates affect
water resource matters in the GMA, for example: promote conservation, redefine 2.13 2.02 2.39 2.32 2.21 2.21 2.14 2.03 2.27 33.00
13-d Planning and Policy Alignment
Develop a common definition of waterwise landscaping and irrigation for common
areas and front yards across providers. Use conservation as an opportunity to
build bridges across providers.1.88 2.36 2.28 2.19 2.18 2.18 1.89 2.24 2.22 33.00
1-a Account Management
Centralize water provider relationship management (to Districts, irrigation
companies) to allow for building long-term beneficial relationships.2.25 2.28 2.19 1.72 2.11 2.11 2.09 2.18 2.16 33.00
11-d Modeling and Analysis
Develop a joint long-term planning model for use by FCU and water districts that
covers the GMA.1.75 2.34 2.14 2.03 2.06 2.06 1.81 2.28 2.15 33.00
11-c Modeling and Analysis
Develop a joint long-term operations model for use by FCU and water districts that
covers the GMA. This is especially helpful where the City is adjusting operations
based on the operations of other Districts (which seems to happen ever summer
as FCU serves as peaking plant)1.88 2.36 2.28 1.69 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.27 2.25 33.00
12-g
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the City Charter to allow City council representatives to sit on District
boards. It currently violates a Charter provision precluding Councilmembers from
holding elected office other than on Council. It would be helpful to keep City
informed through board representation by council, staff, or water commission
reps, while being aware that Board decisions must be made in the best interest of
Districts.2.13 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.03 2.03 33.00
11-e Modeling and Analysis
Incorporate more analytical impacts of water issues in future planning efforts
(e.g., E. Mulberry Plan, Natural Areas Master Plan) to address issues like volume of
water, price of water, location of water, how conservation fits in, etc. and
determine whether/how we can meet demands of a growing population with
current (finite) supply.1.63 2.45 2.26 1.79 2.03 2.03 1.78 2.28 2.24 33.00
Page 3
Page 36
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-u City Plans and Policies
Use the General Fund to subsidize affordable housing developments in District
service areas, i.e., through raw water dedication, reimbursement to offset water
rights and tap fee costs, or other non-water related subsidies or benefits.1.63 2.08 1.84 2.44 2.00 2.00 1.86 2.13 2.01 33.00
5-s City Plans and Policies
Update and standardize policies and processes for City to use when reviewing
special requests. Develop higher-level policies for water issues that are District
and developer neutral (rather than incremental through individual development
projects). EG, water affordability, asking for FCU service outside of FCU service
boundaries, integrated water and land use 2.00 2.13 1.89 1.88 1.97 1.97 1.98 2.09 1.97 33.00
13-c Planning and Policy Alignment
Coordinate an affordable housing water policy or agreement across water
providers to standardize review processes, fees, and/or raw water options for
affordable housing developments.2.00 1.63 1.70 2.54 1.97 1.97 2.08 1.75 1.77 33.00
13-f Planning and Policy Alignment
Encourage ELCO and FCLWD to develop water shortage action plans. Parks
operates in all water provider districts and is interested in planning for how to
alter operations during restrictions scenarios. Without action plans in place, Parks
does not know how to plan. 2.38 1.80 1.90 1.76 1.96 1.96 2.31 1.85 1.96 33.00
9-c
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Work with Districts to firm up service boundaries at an address/parcel level and
trade service areas where it makes sense. Be mindful of difference between
jurisdictional boundaries (potentially flexible) and infrastructure boundaries (once
something is in the ground, less flexible). Some infrastructure mapping, including
irrigation, has been done by Parks and between FCU and ELCO. 1.75 2.47 2.40 1.95 2.14 2.14 1.86 2.34 2.32 32.00
5-v City Plans and Policies
Explore the implications to demands and revenues of and consider buying back
water from customers that do large scale turf conversions (HP, Woodward, CSU,
HOAs).2.00 2.25 1.78 2.38 2.10 2.10 1.96 2.18 1.83 32.00
3-d Central or Regional Authority
Form a regional water authority by separating FCU from the City and merging with
the Districts. 1.50 2.19 1.96 2.58 2.06 2.06 1.68 2.17 1.95 32.00
3-e Central or Regional Authority
Leverage Northern Water as a common wholesaler to Utilities and the Districts for
leadership in program delivery (indoor CII audits, outdoor audits) and other
appropriate regional collaboration topics 1.88 1.98 1.98 2.11 1.99 1.99 1.88 1.99 1.99 32.00
Page 4
Page 37
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-f City Plans and Policies
City to move towards integrated water management planning (aka One Water) as
wastewater has a similar issue with fragmented service areas, water conservation
strategies naturally tie in to green stormwater solutions and watershed
health/water quality 1.88 2.36 1.53 1.97 1.93 1.93 1.95 2.30 1.71 32.00
12-n
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Have formal assigned job responsibilities for City staff that include: relationship
management with the Districts, attending District board meetings, and
highlighting when water resource matters in the GMA arise, akin to Legal's role in
highlighting legal issues to staff and city leadership with direct line to CMO.1.88 1.86 1.72 1.56 1.75 1.75 1.94 1.94 1.84 32.00
4-b City Operations
Create more explicit guidelines around Utilities "neutral to the ratepayer"
standard that address economic, social, environmental, resilience, etc. tradeoffs.
Legal advises staff of this and other legal standards and whether projects will
withstand scrutiny. Staff must provide the factual basis for why a project meets
this standard. 2.13 2.39 1.94 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.11 2.23 1.97 31.00
12-o
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Hire a community services water resource engineer to manage the parks & natural
areas water portfolio (all city-side water resources).2.25 2.41 2.08 1.59 2.08 2.08 2.07 2.27 2.13 31.00
5-r City Plans and Policies
Move water waste ordinance to Ch 20 of the municipal code as a nuisance/safety
issue that applies across the GMA.2.13 1.89 1.88 2.24 2.03 2.03 2.13 1.91 1.91 31.00
12-b
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Add staff to (1) centralize management of all city-owned water resources across
the City/FCU, (2) manage relationships with Districts and serve on or attend board
meetings.2.00 2.13 2.02 1.77 1.98 1.98 1.99 2.10 1.98 31.00
12-i
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Continue cost-sharing and collaborative relationships on water rights and
infrastructure between the City and institutional partners (e.g., parks and schools).2.13 2.02 1.77 1.99 1.97 1.97 2.00 1.97 1.84 31.00
5-o City Plans and Policies
Explore the suitability of low-income water usage rates that are offered through
the Income-Qualified Assistance Program to promote water affordability and
whether that assistance tool is in conflict with the "neutral to ratepayers"
standard. This is a special residential rate code that is offered for water,
wastewater , and electricity service, but is not applied to stormwater. The rate is
generally a 23% discount on Tier 1 usage. This rate is available to residents that
are on the County's LEAP list and residents must opt-in to the program.
Approximately 190 residents have opted-in to the program. The Districts do not
have equivalent programs. 1.88 1.86 1.72 2.43 1.97 1.97 1.87 1.87 1.75 31.00
1-c Account Management
Propagate the key account customer management structure for all Districts, akin
to the recent setup for FCLWD. Ensure job descriptions and resource allocations
formally identify responsibilities in managing District relationships.2.25 2.03 2.04 1.54 1.96 1.96 2.10 1.97 1.96 31.00
6-m Coordination and Communication
Form a water team as part of the City's emergency planning and operations to
improve regional coordination for informing the public about emergency
situations and response activities.2.00 1.88 1.86 2.09 1.96 1.96 1.87 1.95 1.95 31.00
13-e Planning and Policy Alignment
Develop consistent field standards to accommodate new types of development
(usually denser development). For example, utility setbacks and separations would
be nice to align across the GMA. 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.98 1.98 31.00
4-e City Operations
Complete planned sale of 10 CBT shares from Land Bank to Utilities. Proceeds will
support the Land Bank program in buying more land. CBT shares will increase
Utilities' firm yield.2.50 2.19 1.34 1.50 1.88 1.88 2.28 2.13 1.53 31.00
Page 5
Page 38
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
3-a Central or Regional Authority City to execute a tiered acquisition of districts (WFCWD, then ELCO, then FCLWD)1.38 2.17 1.69 2.28 1.88 1.88 1.57 2.06 1.71 31.00
5-i City Plans and Policies
Create a citywide water master plan that identifies supplies, demands, water
types, future needs, system limitations, etc. 1.50 2.31 1.73 1.94 1.87 1.87 1.67 2.17 1.80 31.00
5-e City Plans and Policies
Develop an integrated utility master plan to foster coordination across individual
department-level plans and policies.1.75 2.34 1.64 1.72 1.86 1.86 1.89 2.27 1.79 31.00
3-c Central or Regional Authority
Form a regional water authority akin to how the SCWTA was formed to resolve
cost-sharing uncertainty among three districts. Board includes representatives
from each participating district. Poudre Fire Authority as another model.1.75 2.22 2.25 2.28 2.12 2.12 1.85 2.11 2.10 30.00
5-a City Plans and Policies All City- and FCU-led plans should consider and address relevant water matters. 2.00 2.25 1.91 2.27 2.11 2.11 1.96 2.09 1.93 30.00
5-d City Plans and Policies
Better scale water supply requirements to the development type and anticipated
water demands, with the intent of requiring less water for new developments.1.75 2.09 1.86 2.34 2.01 2.01 1.78 2.02 1.89 30.00
10-c Joint Programs and Projects Hold a competition to identify and evaluate creative water supply solutions 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.95 1.84 1.82 30.00
Page 6
Page 39
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-t City Plans and Policies
Use plumbing, building, and housing codes as tools to address water matters in
the GMA where appropriate, for example authorizing onsite reuse if feasible. 2.00 1.88 1.73 2.08 1.92 1.92 1.85 1.93 1.82 30.00
2-a Advocacy
Increase legislative advocacy, where the City has a policy objective that is the
subject of pending legislation. For example, flexibility in sharing water rights with
neighboring water providers. Where mutually beneficial, advocacy would ideally
be done jointly with Districts. 1.75 1.97 1.96 1.84 1.88 1.88 1.80 1.93 1.93 30.00
8-a IGAs
Clean up and/or renegotiate water sharing agreements with Districts. Adjust
financial terms to better reflects financial, resource, and staff burdens on the City.
Adjust financial terms to settle in more real-time to avoid impacts to the City (e.g.
carrying costs)1.88 2.23 1.89 1.50 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.90 30.00
8-b IGAs Complete IGAs in progress (pre-sed basin, PVP, cross-tie, communications)1.75 2.22 1.87 1.60 1.86 1.86 1.69 2.13 1.89 30.00
1-b Account Management
Ensure that the City (or Parks, as largest user) is set up as a key account by
Districts to foster higher-frequency, more proactive communication.2.25 2.03 1.66 1.37 1.83 1.83 2.12 1.99 1.75 30.00
12-a
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Acquire more financial support to achieve larger visions. For example, leverage
CWCB/State of Colorado as a provider of grant funds, technical assistance, and
training on common topics (e.g. M36 water loss audit training, Water Plan grants
for joint integrated water and land use projects)2.00 1.88 1.61 1.69 1.79 1.79 1.98 1.86 1.73 30.00
13-h Planning and Policy Alignment
Upgrade metering technology of all Districts to AMI and align or centralize high-
resolution data management for all City meters 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.83 1.70 30.00
6-d Coordination and Communication
City/Utilities staff to work with Districts based on their preferences. For example,
ELCO expressed interest in more board-level interactions, whereas FCLWD
expressed interest in more "inform staff for staff recommendation to board" type
interactions. FCLWD would like to "sign off" on all developments, like they have
seen happen on ditch company boards.2.00 1.63 1.83 1.43 1.72 1.72 1.93 1.69 1.82 30.00
4-g
City Operations / City Plans and
Policies
Fully integrate Utilities into City land use planning to ensure land use form can be
supported by utility function and infrastructure.1.88 2.48 2.04 1.80 2.05 2.05 1.92 2.28 1.92 29.00
6-o Coordination and Communication
Invite and/or require water providers to attend all development review meetings
(virtually or in-person). They are currently invited but often decline the invitation,
and not sure what else the City can do. Perhaps the City can categorize
development review requests into categories (simple vs. critical). Districts may not
be on development review list for pre-application and conceptual plan reviews.
There are no fees associated with review at this stage, so cannot recoup cost of
staff time. City could route developments earlier in the process, working with the
Districts to establish criteria of which projects they are interested to see. 2.25 1.78 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.07 1.81 1.92 29.00
6-a Coordination and Communication
Align communications between providers and municipalities where feasible and
services and policies aligned. While regional info is exchanged, there are no good
examples of regional coordination (Metro drought coordination seems to go
better than Front Range coordination in this regard). What about the basin
roundtables?2.13 1.89 1.88 1.74 1.91 1.91 2.06 1.93 1.93 29.00
8-d IGAs Develop an IGA that defines equitable cost sharing among City and Districts 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.73 1.89 1.89 1.82 1.93 1.92 29.00
Page 7
Page 40
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
9-b
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Install FCU-owned meters on all master meters and interconnects so that FCU has
better control of water use and billing data and can better maintain meter
infrastructure. Alternatively, require audits or regular calibrations of all meters
owned by other organizations.1.88 2.23 1.64 1.72 1.87 1.87 1.81 2.14 1.77 29.00
6-l Coordination and Communication
Continue conversations between FCU and Districts for shared water sourcing and
water supply issues and opportunities.2.13 1.64 1.85 1.58 1.80 1.80 1.89 1.72 1.95 29.00
7-e Education
Educate City leadership and Council re: water matters, including history of water
matters, legal limitations, and opportunities. Resurrect or continue promotion of
Water Literate Leaders program. FCLWD articulated extensive training for their
board members. Could include an "exchange program" or rotation between
City/Utilities and District boards to cross-pollinate. 1.88 1.86 1.84 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.74 1.83 1.82 29.00
4-h
City Operations / Water Banking
and Sharing
Develop clear criteria on the use and sale of water resources (in a water bank
scenario).1.63 1.95 1.57 1.77 1.73 1.73 1.70 1.94 1.70 29.00
6-e Coordination and Communication
Continue leveraging the SCWTA RWCC informal operational meeting for
information sharing and coordination. Munroe/PVP operating agreement, HOP,
North Poudre Irrig. Co. issues addressed in this group to date.2.13 1.52 1.58 1.28 1.62 1.62 1.99 1.61 1.63 29.00
6-c Coordination and Communication
City to include District Boards as stakeholders for code changes, plan updates, etc.
Request to make presentations similar to how we present to internal Boards and
Commissions.2.13 1.39 1.56 1.39 1.62 1.62 1.98 1.59 1.63 29.00
5-m City Plans and Policies
Require multifamily units (owner and renter occupied) with common areas,
shared landscaping, etc. to increase conservation and reduce overall water
demand.1.88 2.11 1.50 1.81 1.82 1.82 1.78 2.00 1.62 28.00
4-c City Operations
Fields Services documents infrastructure upgrades needed before assuming
ownership of customers and infrastructure from other Districts. Districts shoul
rectify any issues and/or upgrade costs should be reflected in asset transfer costs 1.88 2.11 1.25 1.53 1.69 1.69 1.80 2.02 1.42 28.00
Page 8
Page 41
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
5-j
City Plans and Policies/City
Operations
Create a comprehensive irrigation and raw water master plan for a more holistic
systems view of parks water use and engagement of ditch companies and water
providers. Convert park irrigation from potable to non-potable when raw water
source is nearby. Develop redundant drip systems for tree zones in park design in
case water use restrictions are implemented.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00
5-k City Plans and Policies
Develop a citywide irrigation master plan. Where potable irrigation is used, do a
billing analysis to check the potential to reduce wastewater charges.1.50 1.94 1.43 1.86 1.68 1.68 1.56 1.91 1.55 28.00
13-g Planning and Policy Alignment
Engage with districts about their raw water requirement policies (e.g., changes to
lot sizes, cash-in-lieu, tap policies, development types). At a minimum, clarify and
educate; at best, align. This may not be feasible unless under a regional authority,
and may not benefit each organization depending on their individual costs.1.38 1.42 1.47 1.66 1.48 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.56 28.00
3-b Central or Regional Authority
Research statuatory tools and judicial proceedings that determine city's level of
control over whether the Districts provide water service within city limits. Based
on current understanding and status quo, Districts need to consent to
relinquishing service area. 2.25 2.03 1.54 1.98 1.95 1.95 2.09 1.96 1.60 27.00
6-i Coordination and Communication
Request all Districts to share board meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and
standards and regulations publicly, to help City stay informed. FCLWD does this
already. ELCO shares meeting dates and times, but not agendas or minutes. Title
32 covers meeting notice and information sharing but is not comprehensive. 2.00 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.83 1.83 1.80 1.87 1.86 27.00
7-h Education
Water staff need to communicate better (translating from technical to public
communications) and more often to educate the public about water matters.
Examples include better use the annual report to demonstrate the tangible
benefits of water conservation; promoting drinking water quality over bottled
water. Train City water specialists in communicating technical water resource
matters to non-technical audiences, through training, participation in
Toastmaster's or other mechanisms.1.75 1.84 1.70 1.79 1.77 1.77 1.64 1.84 1.72 27.00
Page 9
Page 42
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
6-h Education
Develop a policy or process (education platform) for communicating previous
work and key decisions on water matters, rather than revisiting or starting from
scratch in response to Council, Water Commission, or public requests.2.00 2.00 1.63 1.45 1.77 1.77 1.76 1.94 1.69 27.00
12-k
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Ensure that City staff and leaders are aligned and trained on significant water
decisions (e.g., outcomes of RWCC meetings, Regional Strat Op discussion).1.88 2.11 1.62 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.96 1.69 27.00
15-b Water Sharing and Banking
Evaluate the potential to be creative in using southside ditch water for northside
water needs (for parks purposes).1.63 2.08 1.59 1.66 1.74 1.74 1.61 1.95 1.69 27.00
5-l City Plans and Policies
Enact water demand offset policies so that new developments do not increase
overall water demands. See: Water Offset Policies for Water-Neutral Community
Growth, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Jan 2015.1.50 2.06 1.45 1.88 1.72 1.72 1.48 1.94 1.56 27.00
6-f Coordination and Communication
Re-engage use of the right-of-way coordination standing staff team meetings as a
forum for regional coordination of water matters.2.25 1.66 1.61 1.31 1.71 1.71 2.05 1.67 1.67 27.00
4-a City Operations
Conduct a comprehensive review of water rate structures and financial planning
tools that better promote affordable housing, water conservation. 1.88 1.73 1.33 1.87 1.70 1.70 1.81 1.69 1.44 27.00
6-n Coordination and Communication
Hold Monthly Regional Water Cooperation Committee meetings (formerly
convened by Carol and Gerry, focusing on policy/strategy).1.88 1.73 1.70 1.41 1.68 1.68 1.70 1.76 1.76 27.00
7-b Education
Create a 1-page fact sheet or resource guide about this issue with top 10 things
people should know, FAQs, high level info about FCU and Districts.2.13 1.39 1.31 1.35 1.55 1.55 2.04 1.46 1.46 27.00
Page 10
Page 43
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
9-a
Infrastructure and Service Area
Management
Consider "translating" the service area map into other useful maps (e.g.,
constrained water supplies, water costs, where pipes and infrastructure are
actually located)1.50 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.46 1.46 1.53 1.53 1.54 27.00
4-f City Operations
Explore creative ways to utilize NAD tap credits elsewhere or by another dept.
There are some cases when the City acquires land with old homes and existing
water taps, where the structure is demolished and the tap is not intended to be
use. NAD currently has 7 such taps (1 with ELCO, 6 with FCLWD, 0 with FCU). These
water taps may be a monetizable asset where they can be sold (ELCO allows,
FCLWD allows but it's hard, FCU doesn't allow the sale of taps). NAD pays a $20
monthly account fee for each FCLWD tap regardless of use. NAD pays for tap
removal & plugging the water main, gets a credit in the billing system that gets
applied to a new tap. This part of the transaction represents a net cost.1.88 1.98 1.36 1.78 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.83 1.46 26.00
12-j
Organizational Structures and
Resources Develop shared service principles for the City, FCU and Districts.1.88 1.61 1.56 1.38 1.61 1.61 1.75 1.61 1.61 26.00
12-h
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the FC Water Commission structure to require fundamental expertise
(water rights, stormwater, etc), similar to how Art in Public Places requires 3
artists sit on the board, with intent to strengthen advisory role or even move into
more of a decisionmaking role.1.88 1.73 1.20 1.35 1.54 1.54 1.71 1.68 1.32 26.00
6-j Coordination and Communication
Identify City staff representative to encourage and engage with Larimer County to
move regional water supply conversations and collaboration forward.2.00 1.75 1.72 1.56 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.70 1.70 25.00
12-q
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Review the "Budgeting for Outcomes" process to figure out more flexibility and
support for addressing water matters in the GMA 1.88 1.86 1.59 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.72 1.58 25.00
8-c IGAs Create a financial map of connections between the City/FCU and Districts 1.75 1.59 1.42 1.22 1.50 1.50 1.67 1.65 1.54 25.00
7-a Education
All staff presentations on water matters in the GMA should include a basic
orientation to multiple service providers 1.88 1.36 1.40 1.20 1.46 1.46 1.66 1.49 1.51 25.00
13-b Planning and Policy Alignment
Conduct regional planning on foundational topics, for example to look at impacts
of City plan on future demands across the GMA and by provider 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 24.00
7-d Education
There is a need and opportunity to emphasize that interdependence through joint
education between City and the Districts staff on common topics such as land use
planning, drought (could include emergency response exercises), landscape
transformation, etc. Districts as single-purpose water providers is a narrow view –
they wouldn’t have customers and growing businesses without having a growing
and thriving city and community. 1.75 1.34 1.39 1.56 1.51 1.51 1.58 1.42 1.44 24.00
12-p
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Quantify the magnitude of the issue via staff time addressing customers or issues
in District services areas, costs of multiple providers (e.g., water treatment
operation variability and energy costs, water cost impacts on development)1.50 1.56 1.26 1.17 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.58 1.35 24.00
Page 11
Page 44
Item 1.
App D - WRM Evaluation Framework.xlsm
Resources Resources
Solution #Solution Category Solution Description
AVERAGE Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
AVERAGE
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
AVERAGE
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Average
TOTAL Staff,
technical, other (3
low resource, 1
high resource)
TOTAL
City/Utilities (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL External
Organization (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)
TOTAL
Community (3
high benefit, 1
low benefit)Total
Synthesis & Averages
Benefits
Synthesis & Totals
Benefits
7-g Education
Develop public education strategies in conjunction with the Districts to address
topics such as: who is your provider and what are the implications re: programs,
policies, rates)1.63 1.20 1.23 1.38 1.36 1.36 1.48 1.32 1.34 24.00
5-c City Plans and Policies
As part of the WSDMP update, clarify if city's water goals cover FCU only or all City
including raw/potable and establish whether FCU should plan for how to provide
water to surrounding systems in the GMA that rely on single water sources such as
CBT or Montava GW. Be proactive in acknowledging that FCU will need to support
surrounding systems and residents in case of a system failure (and vice versa if
something catastrophic happens to the Poudre).1.50 1.69 1.52 1.46 1.54 1.54 1.48 1.59 1.57 23.00
12-f
Organizational Structures and
Resources
Change the City Charter for Utilities to align with City strategic goals and broaden
the project standard to include affordable housing and other strategic objectives. 1.38 1.30 1.08 1.47 1.31 1.31 1.42 1.32 1.20 23.00
7-f Education
Educate general city staff (non-water specialists) about water matters (e.g., lunch
and learns, City training programs, Water Literate Leaders)1.75 1.47 1.15 1.17 1.39 1.39 1.51 1.45 1.22 22.00
12-c
Organizational Structures and
Resources Advocate for term limits on District Boards.2.67 1.92 1.72 1.72 2.00 2.00 2.19 1.83 1.69 21.00
10-d Joint Programs and Projects
Land use authorities (e.g., PDT at FC) hold a competition among FCU and Districts
for affordable housing design and price. Updating water supply requirements are
the mechanism for adjusting water costs for new housing types.2.00 1.75 1.55 1.72 1.75 1.75 1.84 1.68 1.65 20.00
Page 12
Page 45
Item 1.
Update on the ‘Water Resources Matters in
the Fort Collins Growth Management Area:
Study Report Results’
01-24-23
Addressing how the City of Fort Collins can improve regional collaboration and coordination with neighboring water districts
Jen Dial, Water Resources Manager
Page 46
Item 1.
2Questions
1)What questions does Council have about the Water Resources
Matters Study?
2)What thoughts or direction does Council have about pursuing the
next steps suggested?
Page 47
Item 1.
3Background
•Utilities service boundary, city boundary and GMA
do not coincide
•Significant differences exist:
•Mission and vision
•Policies
•Organizational size
•Staffing
•Financial resources
•Water rights portfolio
•Development patterns
•Regional collaboration could improve water
supply reliability
Page 48
Item 1.
4Regional collaboration efforts
1960’s 2000 2010 2015 2019-2020 2021-2022+
•Periodic meetings with
Soldier Canyon Treatment
Authority
•Sprinkler Checkup Program
•Regional Water
Collaboration
Committee formed
•Growing Smart Program
•StratOps formed
•Larimer Co. water existing report
•Council directs staff to
pursue more regional
collaboration
•Joint Halligan expansion
effort
•Several districts formed
•Various agreements entered
•Staff conducted this
Report
•Adopted graywater codes
beyond Utilities service
area
Page 49
Item 1.
5Drivers
Water is increasingly scarce,expensive and complex.
New homes have become increasingly unaffordable.
Infrastructure maintenance and failures
Colorado River drought conditions
Page 50
Item 1.
Colorado River Issues 6
CO River Basin in significant drought for over 20 years
CO River provides water to 40M people in seven states, two countries and 4M acres of farmland.
Lake Mead Water Levels
Source: Southern Nevada Water Authority
Significant source for Utilities and Districts
Upper Basin states (CO, NM, UT, WY)
Use is within allocation
Lower Basin states (AZ, CA, NV)
Use is over allocation
Restrictions could be mandated
Continue communications with Northern Water
Page 51
Item 1.
Improve
Understanding of regional water matters
Alignment (both internal and external)
Understanding of perspectives on
relationships
Evaluate challenges and opportunities
Develop potential solutions
7Goals of Study
Page 52
Item 1.
8Study approach
Phase 1: Discovery
City and Utilities interviews
Joint District interview
District Board presentations
Water Commission
presentation
Chamber of commerce/
developer interview
Phase 2: Evaluation
Quantify impacts of identified
matters and potential
solutions
Evaluate identified matters
and solutions for sphere of
influence, feasibility, trade-
offs
Phase 3: Outputs
Evaluation framework
Solutions evaluation
Recommendations for
potential solutions
Page 53
Item 1.
9Results
1 –strongly
disagree 2 3 4 5 –strongly
agree
2.4 It is easier to work in the Fort Collins
GMA than in other jurisdictions.
2.3 I have the engagement and the
support I need from the City.
2.6 I am satisfied with my ability to
collaborate with the City.
4.6 My job is affected by serving jurisdictions within
and outside of the Fort Collins GMA.
Results shown represent weighted averages for
n = 7: joint District interview, results on left
n = 61: City interviews, results on right
2.8 My job function is affected by having
multiple providers in the GMA.
2.3 I am satisfied with my ability to
collaborate with the Districts.
3.0 I have the influence and support I
need to address water in the GMA.
District Staff Input City/Utilities Staff Input
Page 54
Item 1.
Matters identified with multiple water service providers 10
Competition Coordination Customer
Experience Development
Education and
Advocacy
City as a
Customer
Future
Challenges IGAs
Infrastructure
and Service
Areas
Joint Programs
and Projects Leadership Mission &
Values
Modeling and
Analysis
Organizational
Structures and
Resources
Planning and
Policy
Alignment
Resilience
Note: Dark blue boxes represent categories with the most challenges.
Page 55
Item 1.
11Potential “High-Benefit” Solutions
Support
strategies to
increase
available storage
Develop an
emergency plan
IGA (supplies)
Explore
establishment of
a water bank
program
Expand
conservation
program
offerings
Page 56
Item 1.
12
•Educate and align on development process and expectations
•Gather information and develop handout with District requirements and costs
Development Review
•Analyze water impacts of long-range plans
•Assessments of future water demands and water supply/infrastructure constraints
•Include the Districts in planning/policy updates
Planning & Analysis
•Regularly attend District board meetings (City staff or Council members)
•Recruit knowledgeable representatives to run for boards and commissions
Boards & Leadership
Potential “Tactical” Solutions
Page 57
Item 1.
•Continue to meet with Districts
•Build more trusting and collaborative relationship
•Improve collaboration on pursuing higher-benefit and resource solutions
•Continue involvement with StratOps,Larimer County water supply planning
effort,District boards meetings and other regional groups
•Develop handouts of requirements/costs for development review process
•Enhance joint conservation efforts and programs
•Improve data sharing around population,demand,ect.
•Improve coordination on outreach around drought,particularly in water shortage
situations
13Potential Next Steps
Page 58
Item 1.
14Questions
1)What questions does Council have about the Water Resources
Matters Study?
2)What thoughts or direction does Council have about pursuing the
next steps suggested?
Page 59
Item 1.
QUESTIONS?THANK YOU
Page 60
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
January 24, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Kendra Boot, City Forester
Mike Calhoon, Parks Department Director
Dean Klingner, Interim Director, Community Services
Ted Hewitt, Legal
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Urban Forestry Strategy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the current state of municipal forestry and
to seek Council feedback around future urban forest strategy and policy development. Staff will share
proposed next steps for the Urban Forest Strategic Plan effort.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What general questions or feedback does Council have on how the Forestry Division is addressing the
urban forest-related Council Priorities?
2. What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed areas of focus and proposed
process for the Urban Forest Strategy?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Urban forestry has been a priority in Fort Collins for decades and has created a strong foundation to
advance trees as important infrastructure for generations to come. Council identified two tree-related
priorities this term. Staff will share high level details on what efforts have been made thus far related to
Tree Subsidy and Improving Tree Policies and briefly share the programs and existing codes that have
helped create the canopy that is present today.
Recent municipal code amendments (June 21, 2022) for improving tree policies included:
Dedicating all trees, public and private, as important community infrastructure has been created.
As trees are essential ecological, cultural and socioeconomic resources for the City, its residents
and visitors, this provision will bring awareness to these important assets through the new
ordinance. The benefits provided by a diversified and abundant community forest are many and
are stated within the ordinance.
Page 61
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
Providing that no person shall affix any item as a tree attachment to any tree within the public
right-of-way of any street or sidewalk. Exceptions to this prohibition include: City employees or
contractors performing work for the City; authorized use of slacklines or hammocks; and holiday
lights from October through February.
Requiring any person who engages in the business of felling trees for financial gain to be licensed
as an arborist in accordance with standards of the City Forester.
Requiring property owners to maintain trees up to the center line of any alley adjacent to their
property to provide for the safe and convenient use of alleys, streets, and sidewalks.
Authorizing the City Forester to set reasonable arborist license fees by rule and allowing annual
adjustments to the fees based on an evaluation of regional arborist licensing fees.
Authorizing additional flexibility for the terms of repayment when a property owner is to be
assessed the costs of complete tree removal.
Making technical amendments and other minor Code revisions to improve clarity and connection
to other Code sections.
Council also funded an Urban Forest Strategic Planning Effort including community engagement that will
kick-off in 2023. Staff will provide a presentation on the importance of an urban forest strategic plan and
the proposed areas of focus.
NEXT STEPS
- Urban Forest Strategic Plan – Council funded budget offer NLSH 59.6 for 2023. Staff is working
on a Request for Proposals and will kick-off the consultant driven planning effort in the Spring.
- Tree Subsidy – Council funded 1000 trees to be subsidized and planted on private property
through the Community Canopy Program in 2022, and again in 2023 and 2024.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Memo, June 24, 2022
2. Presentation
Page 62
Item 2.
Forestry Division
Parks Department
413 S. Bryan Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.221.6660
forestry@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/forestry
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 24, 2022
To: Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager
Thru: Mike Calhoon, Parks Director
From: Kendra Boot, City Forester
Re: Follow-up regarding First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2022, Amending
Chapter 27 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Forestry.
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to answer questions from the Council’s Consent Calendar
Follow-up of the June 21 meeting, regarding this ordinance and improving tree policies,
a Council Priority.
Discussion:
Both Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Pignataro mentioned that they were
expecting more changes regarding improved tree policies. The Chapter 27 code
amendments are the first step towards accomplishing Council’s priority around
improved policies, beginning with dedicating trees as important community
infrastructure.
Next Steps:
Staff is currently reviewing a draft report from Clarion Associates on a consultant driven
Land Use Code (LUC) Audit that benchmarked the City LUC with peer cities around the
country, as an additional step towards the priority. Staff will bring forward findings to a
Council Work Session in the fourth quarter of this year.
In addition, Forestry Staff has submitted a 2023/2024 budget offer to seek funding for
an Urban Forest Strategic Planning effort to establish more long-term implementable
action items to preserve and protect the community’s canopy.
Page 63
Item 2.
Urban Forest Strategy
and Policy
01-24-2023
Kendra Boot
City Forester
Page 64
Item 2.
2Questions to Consider
1.What general questions or feedback does Council have on how the Forestry Division is
addressing the urban forest-related Council Priorities?
2.What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed areas of focus
and proposed process for the Urban Forest Strategy?
Page 65
Item 2.
•City Strategic Plan
•City Plan
•Our Climate Future
•Council Priorities
3Connecting with Trees
Strategic Alignment
Page 66
Item 2.
4Connecting with Trees
Urban Forest Benefits
•Reduce energy use
•Stormwater runoff reduction
•Air pollutant removal
•Reduce Urban Heat Island
•Appreciating asset
•Property values
•Quality of life, faster healing
•Sense of place
•Reduce crime
•Shade and aesthetics
Page 67
Item 2.
•Estimated 443,300 trees*
•Structural value equates to $781M*
•14% canopy cover**
5Fort Collins Urban Canopy
Public and private trees within City Limits
*Community Tree Assessment, Davey Resource Group, 2016
**McHale, 2019
Page 68
Item 2.
•17 full-time classified employees; plus 4 hourlies
•57,000 public trees
•Current budget equates to $53/tree investment
•Valued at $113.7M
•Provide $6.4M in Eco Benefits Annually
•Greenhouse gas, water and energy saved, air
quality, and property benefits
6Forestry Division –Parks Department
Structure and Public Infrastructure
Page 69
Item 2.
•Indirect connection
•Help bird species recover #9
•Effective soil amendment policies and compliance (water usage) -#14
•Improved Air Quality -#17
•Xeriscape -#19
•Direct connection
•Improve Tree Policies -#28
•Tree Planting Subsidy -#29
7Connecting with Trees
Urban Forest-related Council Priorities
Page 70
Item 2.
#28 Improving Tree Policies
•Municipal Code Updates
•Dedicating trees as infrastructure
•Arborist Licensing improvements
•Affixing items to ROW trees
•Shifted maintenance responsibility of alley trees
•Prohibiting planting/sale of ash trees
•Land Use Code audit
•Clarion Associates
•Ad hoc Committee
8Connecting with Trees
Urban Forest Council Priorities
Page 71
Item 2.
#29 Tree Subsidy
Community Canopy Program
•1000 trees in 2022
9Connecting with Trees
Urban Forest Council Priorities
Page 72
Item 2.
2023/2024 Funding
•Emerald Ash Borer Management
•Additional tree planting, water truck and hourly
•Contractual pruning funding
•Landscape Inspectors
•Urban Forest Strategic Plan
10Connecting with Trees
Additional Council Support
Page 73
Item 2.
•Pruning and Removal
•Emergency Response
•Tree Infrastructure Replacement
•Wood utilization and recycling
•Living Tribute Tree Program
•Tree City USA and Arbor Day
11Forestry Division –Parks Department
Operations
Page 74
Item 2.
•Pruning and Removal
•Emergency Response
•Tree Infrastructure Replacement
•Wood utilization and recycling
•Living Tribute Tree Program
•Tree City USA and Arbor Day
12Forestry Division –Parks Department
Operations
Page 75
Item 2.
•Arborist Licensing
•Private Property Enforcement
•Insect & Disease Management
•Development Review
•Education & Outreach
13Forestry Division –Parks Department
Operations
Page 76
Item 2.
•Arborist Licensing
•Private Property Enforcement
•Insect & Disease Management
•Development Review
•Education & Outreach
14Forestry Division –Parks Department
Operations
Page 77
Item 2.
•Arborist Licensing
•Private Property Enforcement
•Insect & Disease Management
•Development Review
•Education & Outreach
15Forestry Division –Parks Department
Operations
Page 78
Item 2.
•Improve codes, standards, and best management practices
•Urban Forest Strategic Plan
16Next Steps
Multiple opportunities
Page 79
Item 2.
•Tree Management Standards and Best Management Practices
•Emerald Ash Borer Management & Response Plan
•Urban Forest Storm Response Plan
•Municipal Code
•Land Use Code
•Larimer County Urban Area Streetscape Standards
17
Existing Code and Policy
Page 80
Item 2.
Municipal Code
•City Forester position
•Arborist Licensing
•Enforcement
•Permitting
•Prohibiting certain tree species
18
Existing Code and Policy
LUC and LCUASS
•Landscape Standards
•Tree Protection and Preservation
•Mitigation
•Tree Diversity
•Tree-lined streets and neighborhoods
Page 81
Item 2.
•Improve codes, standards, and best management practices
•Urban Forest Strategic Plan
19Next Steps
Multiple opportunities
Page 82
Item 2.
•Establish a Vision and Strategy
•Identify gaps and opportunities
•Community wants and needs
•Alignment with local and regional plans
20Next Steps
WHY a Strategic Plan?
Urban Forest
Canopy
What do we
have?
What do we
want?
How do we
get there?
How are we
doing?
Page 83
Item 2.
•Increasing tree canopy and setting metrics
•Diversify tree species to create resilience
•Co-create a more equitable tree canopy
•Explore sustainable funding approaches
21Next Steps
Strategic Plan Areas of Focus
Page 84
Item 2.
22
Proposed Strategic Plan Timeline
Q1 2023
•Request for proposals
•Secure consultant
Q2 2023
•Strategic Plan kick-off
•Data Collection
Q3 2023
•Stakeholder Engagement
•Community Outreach &
Engagement
Q4 2023
•Synthesis and Alternatives
Development
•Boards and Council Plan Review
Q1 2024
•Final Plan Development and
Adoption
Q2 2024
•Strategic Plan Rollout
Page 85
Item 2.
23Questions to Consider
1.What general questions or feedback does Council have on how the Forestry Division is
addressing Council Priorities?
2.What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed areas of focus
and proposed process for the Urban Forest Strategy?
Page 86
Item 2.
24Exploration of Tree-related Land Use Code UpdatesPage 87
Item 2.
25Questions to Consider
1.Does Council support these opportunities to improve tree-related land use code policies?
2.What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction?
What additional information is needed?
Page 88
Item 2.
26Tree-related Land Use Code Audit
Clarion Associates (consultant)
•Tree Protection and Preservation
•Tree Canopy Enhancement
Ad hoc Committee
•Reviewed existing code
•Explored Clarion Associates report
•Identified potential updates
Page 89
Item 2.
27
Challenges around tree establishment and responsibility of replacement
Mitigation requirements do not strongly incentivize tree preservation
No penalties for tree removal or tree damage on commercial development sites with approved
landscape plans post development
Parking lot standards and tree replacement to reduce heat island impacts
Single family residential construction sites do not trigger any tree-related LUC requirements
Current Opportunities for Improvement
Page 90
Item 2.
28
Opportunities for improvement
•New Landscape Inspectors funded!
•Create separate street tree escrow
•Set timeline for when City takes over street
trees
Escrow for Tree Establishment
Existing Code
•Landscape escrow released once ROW
trees are planted/permitted
•No timeline on when trees are specifically
taken over by City
•City ends up replacing many trees with
General Fund dollars
Page 91
Item 2.
29
Opportunities for improvement
•Mitigating “in addition to” minimum stocking
requirements
•Mitigating trees 2” DBH and above
•Appraised value or inch for inch for larger
trees over specified diameter
•Sliding scale to incentivize
preservation
•Limit offsite mitigation to public ROW
Mitigation
Existing Code
•Mitigation value 1-6 trees
•All trees under 6-inches not mitigated
•Mitigation trees replaced on site or within
half mile
•Removals accompanied by feasibility
letter
•Does not incentivize saving existing trees
Page 92
Item 2.
30
Opportunities for improvement
•New Landscape Inspectors funded!
•Mitigating trees 2” DBH and above
•Appraised value or inch for inch for trees
over specified diameter
Penalty for Healthy Tree Removals
Existing Code
•No long-term enforcement beyond
approved landscape plan post
development
•Developer/property owner must keep
site in compliance
Page 93
Item 2.
31
Opportunities for improvement
•Municipal and Land Use Codes
•Trees need to be nominated
•Property owner would have to agree
•Approval process needed
•Trees mapped to show designation
•Would require permission to remove, prune,
or treat
•Protected in perpetuity
•Exception for dead, dying or
dangerous
•Fund created for maintenance
Heritage Tree Program
Existing Code
•Does not currently exist
Page 94
Item 2.
32
Opportunities for improvement
•New Landscape Inspectors funded!
•Increase enforcement/penalties for non-
compliant landscapes
•Improve site requirements for adequate
growing spaces
Parking Lot Standards
Existing Code
•Mostly sufficient
•Losing existing planting spaces for
additional parking in redevelopment
Page 95
Item 2.
33
Opportunities for improvement
•Explore ways to educate and advise
•A resource for tree preservation
•Establish touch points during Building Permit
Process
•Empower licensed tree companies as a
resource
Tree protection & preservation on single family residential
Existing Code
•Does not currently exist
Page 96
Item 2.
34Next Steps
High Priority –Q3 2023
1. Escrow for tree establishment
2. Improve mitigation standards to incentivize preservation
3. Consider increasing penalties for tree removal
Lower Priority
4. Explore a Heritage Tree Program
5. Investigate parking lot standards/replacement enforcement
6. Review options to best advise / influence residential
redevelopment on tree protection and preservation
Prioritization of Opportunities
Page 97
Item 2.
35Questions to Consider
1.Does Council support these opportunities to improve tree-related land use code policies?
2.What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction?
What additional information is needed?
Page 98
Item 2.
Page 99
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
January 24, 2023
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Kendra Boot, City Forester
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Mike Calhoon, Parks Department Director
Dean Klingner, Interim Director, Community Services
Ted Hewitt, Legal
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Land Use Code Audit Related to Forestry.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the land use code audit as it relates to
tree-related landscape standards and to seek Council feedback on the direction of tree policy update
opportunities that have been identified.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support these opportunities to improve tree-related land use code policies?
2. What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction? What additional
information is needed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Forestry Division hired Clarion Associates to provide a peer-city report on code standards and best
practices with a focus on tree protection and preservation as well as tree canopy enhancement. Staff
created an ad hoc committee which included cross-departmental City staff and external landscape
architects and CSU staff members to review both the existing land use code and Clarion Associates
report to identify gaps and opportunities of the tree-related policy.
NEXT STEPS
- Additional engagement with City staff and stakeholders. Additional engagement with internal
and external stakeholders is needed to fully understand potential impacts to the development
community.
- Identify and develop resources needed to implement future code updates. Some of the
proposed code opportunities will need additional resources, tracking systems and structure to be
successful long-term. Staff will align with other City departments to explore what opportunities
currently exist and where they may need to develop new processes.
Page 100
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
- Code development and adoption. With feedback from Council, Boards and Commissions,
stakeholders and the public, the project team will continue to hone these opportunities and the
associated potential impacts to development. First reading of an ordinance to updated codes for
new and redevelopment can be anticipated in Q3 2023 based on Council’s direction.
o High Priority – Q3 2023
Escrow for tree establishment
Improve mitigation standards to incentivize preservation
Consider increasing penalties for tree removal on commercial development
o Lower Priority
Explore a Heritage Tree Program – Urban Forest Strategic Plan engagement
Investigate parking lot standards / tree replacement enforcement – LUC Phase 2
Review options to best advise / influence residential redevelopment on tree
protection and preservation – Building Permit Process
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Memo, June 24, 2022
2. Clarion Associates – Best Practices report
3. Presentation
Page 101
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Page 102
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Soil Amendments .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Best Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Other Valuable Practices ........................................................................................................................... 6
Xeriscaping .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Best Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Other Valuable Practices ......................................................................................................................... 21
Tree Protection and Tree Canopy Enhancement ........................................................................................ 27
Best Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Other Valuable Practices ......................................................................................................................... 35
Page 103
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 1
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Fort Collins: Nature in the City
Additional Targeted Best Practices Report
May 2022
Background
Since 2020, Clarion Associates has been assisting the City of Fort Collins to implement its Nature
in the City (NIC) initiative. To date, that support has included:
• Preparation of a Land Development Code Audit to identify barriers to implementing
different components of the initiative;
• Finalizing definitions of several key terms that are often used loosely, but which need to
be defined objectively in order to be used in regulatory documents like the Land
Development Code; and
• Preparation of draft text amendments to the Land Development Code to implement the
following aspects of the NIC initiative:
o Requirements for inclusion of common open space;
o Limits on impervious surfaces in new development; and
o Requirements that certain types of development earn at least a minimum
number of points is a new Nature in the City Score system, which provides
numerous flexible options related to site and building design.
Before the proposed regulatory changes were included in the Land Development Code,
however, the City asked that Clarion Associates prepare additional research on Best Practices to
promote the NIC goals in four discrete areas:
1. Soil amendments to ensure that new vegetation survives, thrives, and provides
maximum environmental and experiential benefits;
2. Xeriscape practices to reduce outdoor water consumption without compromising the
public experience of being in nature or the environmental benefits that healthy
vegetation provides;
3. Tree protection during site work and construction phases and during the creation of
landscaping and planting plans for the proposed development and redevelopment; and
4. Tree canopy enhancement in order increase public perception of nature, increase
shading, and reduce the impacts of urban heat islands over time.
To identify these best practices, Clarion Associates agreed with the City staff to:
Page 104
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 2
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• Focus on regulations or incentives suitable for inclusion in a Land Development Code or
related regulations – rather than advisory policy statements or plans that do not have
regulatory effect;
• Identify up to 20 communities across the United States for detailed web-based research
on these four topics;
• Focus the research on soil amendment and xeriscape on communities in the Rocky
Mountain west, because of the unique dry climate and soil conditions in this region;
• Make initial contact with each community to confirm the accuracy of published
regulations and incentives, as well as the continued enforcement and effectiveness of
those regulations.
• Refine the list of research communities to eliminate those where initial contacts suggest
that further research would not be fruitful, and if possible, replace them with other
communities where regulation and incentives appear to be more effective.
After this additional research program was initiated in late 2021, initial contacts revealed that
several communities have integrated or overlapping regulations for tree protection and tree
canopy protection. In order to reflect these Best Practices accurately, we combined these two
topics into a single inquiry and agreed to research a larger number of target communities in
that combined category.
After contacting, eliminating, and substituting communities as described above, our initial
research and interviews focused our Best Practices research on the following communities:
• Soil Amendments: Denver, CO; Thornton, CO; Castle Rock, CO; Brighton, CO; and
Greeley, CO.
• Xeriscape: Aurora, CO; Castle Rock, CO; Las Vegas, NV; San Antonio, TX; and Tucson, AZ.
• Tree Protection and Canopy Enhancement: Boulder, CO; Bloomington, IN; Fort Wayne,
IN; Lake Forest Park, WA; Madison, WI; Portland, OR; Reno, NV; San Antonio, TX; and
Seattle, WA.
This document includes Clarion Associates’ recommended Best Practices in each of these areas,
subject to internal discussion with the City as to which of the recommended practices would
best “fit” with the City’s goals and administrative systems. “Best Practices” is, of course, a
subjective term, and professionals often differ about what is “best” and why. For this report,
we focused on the following factors to identify those regulations that we think are worthy of
additional consideration by Fort Collins:
• The clarity and understandability of the regulations to both staff and citizens;
• The administrability of the regulation—i.e., whether the regulation can be efficiently
implemented, monitored, and enforced with reasonable levels of effort by City staff;
and
Page 105
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 3
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• The host community’s comments on the effectiveness of the regulation in achieving its
purpose.
Within each topic area, we single out a few communities with regulations that we think best
meet these criteria. We also identify additional cities whose regulations or incentives include a
provision, incentive, or approach that is worthy of additional consideration. We have termed
the first group “Best Practices” and the second group “Additional Valuable Practices.” In several
cases, even those communities that meet these criteria stated that their regulations,
procedures, and enforcement mechanisms were imperfect and provided suggestions for
improvements that would make them mor effective.
Soil Amendments
This section summarizes information from communities that require soil amendments to be
added to new landscaping to ensure the proper growth and survival of vegetation. Soil
amendments also help conserve water, because newly installed landscaping typically needs to
be irrigated more than established landscaping. By increasing the probability that newly
planted material survives, the use of soil amendments can help reduce long-term water
demand.
Best Practices
Thornton, CO
Thornton’s development code (Chapter 18 of its City Code) establishes basic soil amendment
requirements. All landscape areas, except for side yards not visible from public areas and rear
yards of singe-family dwellings, are required to be amended with at least four cubic yards of
organic amendment per 1,000 square feet of ground, and the amendments must be tilled at
least six inches into the soil. Sec. 19-538(a)(4).
The code references Section 800, Landscape Improvements, of the Thornton Standards and
Specifications document, which imposes additional obligations on developers. Prior to the
addition of soil amendments, applicants are required to remove all construction debris from
the soil, including large rocks, concrete, asphalt, and soil clods; all building materials such as
boards, insulation, shingles, rebar, wire, and grading stakes. Applicants must then rip the soil to
a minimum depth of 12 inches if it has been compacted by heavy machinery or by working it
while wet, in rows no greater than 18 inches apart. Ripping operations must be timed to
commence when soil moisture is adequate enough to allow penetration but is not wet or
muddy.
The soil amendments are required to be incorporated throughout the landscape areas, not just
around areas where trees and shrubs are planted. At least four cubic yards must be distributed
across the soil surface in a uniform 1⅓ inch depth and incorporated into the top eight inches of
Page 106
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 4
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
soil with a rototiller capable of tilling to eight inches in depth.1 Additional soil amendments are
required for City-maintained landscapes and metropolitan district parks (six cubic yards per
1,000 square feet, distributed to two-inch depth) and for landscaped medians (27 cubic yards,
distributed to a 36 inch depth).
Compliance with the regulations is assessed at three inspections performed during the
landscape installation process:
• The first inspection takes place prior to soil amendment and tilling and looks for the
presence of weeds, especially noxious weeds.
• The second inspection involves a review of the soil amendment before it is tilled into the
soil.
• Finally, after tilling and fine grading, the third inspection reviews the prepared soil to
ensure it was tilled to the required eight inches, and for overall quality and absence of
construction debris.
In addition, the developer/applicant may be required to provide City staff soil amendment load
tickets and affidavits that confirm soil amendments have been installed for a set of dwellings
before the construction of the next phase of dwellings is authorized.
Primary Contacts
Grant Penland, Planning Director, gpenland@ci.thornton.co.us; Warren Campbell, Current
Planning Manager, wcampbell@ci.thornton.co.us.
Denver Water
Soil Amendment Program
The requirements of Denver Water’s Soil Amendment Program are clearly identified on its
website.
• The reasons for amending soil are explained in plain language understandable by the
public and contractors.
• Areas larger than 300 square feet must incorporate soil amendments before
landscaping is installed.
• The standards encourage (but do not require) that organic compost meeting at least
Class II standards be installed, lists Class II compost suppliers, and includes a table listing
the chemical requirements for Class I and Class II compost (shown below):
1 While the City’s development code requires tilling down to six inches, the Standards and Specification document,
which is incorporated into the code by reference, states that tilling is required down to eight inches.
Page 107
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 5
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• Four cubic yards of compost per 1,000 square feet of permeable areas (including tree
lawns and permeable portions of rights-of-way adjacent to the property, which are
often owned by the City rather than individual property owners) roto-tilled to a depth of
four to six inches, except in the following situations:
o Two cubic yards of compost per 1,000 square feet of permeable area are
required for native grass areas (subject to Denver Water confirmation of seed
mix); and
o Twelve cubic yards per 1,000 square feet are required for amended topsoil.
• The contractor must supply an invoice or load ticket showing that a specific soil
amendment product was being delivered to the subject property address, as well as a
map showing the square footages of areas required to be amended, and if native
grasses are to be installed, a sample of the seed mix. Denver Water can then confirm
that the amount of soil amendment was adequate for the area required to be amended
and can provide phone or e-mail confirmation that the requirement had been met.
• Water service to the property can be withheld until Denver Water has confirmed that
adequate amendment product had been delivered to the property.
• Site inspections are not required, but contractors are warned that spot inspections
might occur.
• Although the requirements are publicized as a cost-saving measure for property owners,
who would experience higher rates of plant survival, its primary interest is the
associated water savings through more effective water absorption and reduced runoff.
As a regional water utility, Denver Water has regulatory authority to enforce the requirements
against property owners only when water service is being installed, and even then its capability
to do so is limited. The various jurisdictions served by Denver Water have a broad range of
landscaping requirements, and many of the governments’ land use and other regulations
incorporate only limited water conservation controls and few if any soil amendment
requirements. Denver Water works with local governments to encourage landscape regulations
Page 108
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 6
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
similar to those included in the agency’s soil amendment program, and staff is hopeful more
consistent regulations will be adopted by local governments over the next several years.
To the (limited) extent that they are enforced, Denver Water’s actions to enforce the soil
amendment requirements are taken against the landscape contractors who install the
landscaping materials. This is similar to the approach used by many cities to enforce sign
regulations (i.e., require licensing of sign contractors and make them responsible for
compliance with the regulation with the knowledge that violating the regulation could result in
suspension or revocation of their license to install signs).
Although the soil amendment program indicates that spot site inspections may take place,
Denver Water staff reported that inspections generally have not occurred for the past six years.
Previously, when spot inspections did take place, inspectors found that around 95 percent of
contractors complied with the requirements. Compliance with the requirement to provided
receipts is generally high, although new development projects are more likely to comply than
redevelopment projects, and compliance is higher from large developers than from smaller
contractors who redevelop individual single-family properties. Overall, the resources devoted
to administration of the soil amendment program occupy about 0.5 FTE of staff time.
In an effort to encourage compliance, Denver Water does not charge fees for participation in its
soil amendment program.
Primary Contact
Austin Kcmarik, Water Conservation Specialist, Austin.Krcmarik@denverwater.org
Other Valuable Practices
Castle Rock, CO
The Town of Castle Rock landscaping and irrigation standards are contained in its Landscape
and Irrigation Criteria Manual, which is adopted by reference into the Municipal Code. Sec. 1.13
of the Manual defines Soil Amendment as “Organic material added to the soil to improve
texture, moisture holding capacity, nutrient capacity, water and air infiltration.” Sections 4.4.1
through 4.4.3 of the Manual includes specific provisions for how to amend soil that are
mandatory for all new developments and changes to landscaping. The provisions require that:
• A soil analysis to be conducted by professional soil scientist to evaluate texture,
exchange capacity, conductivity, organic matter, and acidity along with nitrogen,
potassium, phosphorus, zinc, iron, copper, manganese, and lime content in the soil.
• Stripping and stockpiling of indigenous topsoil during construction for successful plant
material establishment
• At least four cubic meters of amended soil added per 1,000 square feet planting areas
for turf, trees, shrubs, perennials, and annuals.
Page 109
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 7
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• Soil amendments material to be compost, which is defined as a “fully finished,
stabilized, and mature product, derived from organic materials such as leaves, grass
clippings, wood chips, and other yard wastes. Finished compost is dark and crumbly,
does not resemble the original contents, and has an earthy smell. Acceptable compost
will not contain any human or animal waste.” Staff emphasized that the inclusion of any
amount of “hot compost” (compost that has not fully broken down) is prohibited, and
that on occasion they have required contractors to remove inappropriate soil
amendment from the surface and install replacement amendments that meet Town
standards.
• As an exception to the requirement of compost as defined above, soil amendments for
native seed areas to be consistent with detail #17 in the Castle Rock Temporary Erosion
and Sediment Control Manual. The Town may require written documentation of the
types and amounts of soil amendments installed.
• Where soil amendments are required, soil that is roto-tilled to a minimum depth of six
inches, and rocks, debris, and clods greater than ¾-inch diameter must be removed
(except that dry land seed areas may include clods up to two inch diameter).
Castle Rock pairs these requirements with a robust inspection regime. Single-family detached
and attached, duplex, triplex, and fourplex residential properties) are inspected once, after the
soil amendment has been added, the soil tilled, and the site graded. Multifamily and
nonresidential properties are inspected twice. The first inspection takes place after the soil
amendment has been added to ensure that an adequate amount has been used. The second
inspection takes place after tilling and grading.
Staff believes compliance with the requirement for adding soil amendment is high, particularly
for nonresidential buildings, since the compost is relatively inexpensive and providing the
required amount (or even a little more) is less expensive than pausing construction while fixing
the work and awaiting reinspection. The high compliance rate is also attributed to Castle Rock’s
consistent inspection process and withholding certificates of occupancy until inspections have
been completed.
The Town’s water conservation programs are managed by a four-person team, including the
water efficiency supervisor, a technician who handles the rebate programs and inspections, an
inspector, and an office assistant who manages administration, scheduling, and customer
contact. Currently, the site inspections are conducted by an inspector who is a seasonal
employee who works four days per week (0.8 FTE), generally from May through October or
November. Three other members manage the administration of the programs, including
potential updates to the regulations to address any necessary changes. This staff has been
managing about 1,000 residential inspections and 50-60 permits per year.
Residential projects pay a $45 inspection fee. For each required reinspection, the fee doubles,
which discourages landscape contractors from scheduling inspections before they are ready.
Page 110
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 8
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
For commercial projects, compliance with the soil amendment regulations is confirmed through
the irrigation permit inspection process. The permit inspection fee is $610, with a reinspection
fee of $110 if necessary.
Primary Contact
Rick Schultz, Water Efficiency Supervisor, 720-733-6027
Greeley, CO
Section 24-804, Plant Specifications, of the Greeley Development Code includes non-regulatory
Xeric Guidelines and offers a reduction in raw water requirements for applicants whose
landscaping plans include these elements.
• Guideline (d)4 states: “Incorporate soil amendments and use of organic mulches that
reduce water loss and limit erosion. All plant areas should receive soil amendments of at
least 3 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet.”
• Guideline 5(e) provides that: “Prior to the installation of turf-grass and/or other plant
materials in areas that have been compacted or disturbed by construction activity, such
areas shall follow soil amendment procedures pursuant to Title 20 and the Water and
Sewer lawn installation specifications.”
Section 14, Vegetation and Irrigation, of the City’s Construction Standards for water detention
areas provides detailed standards that could be applied to mandatory soil amendment
ordinances.
• Compost is defined as: 100% humus rich organic matter. The compost shall be a well
decomposed, stable, weed free organic matter derived from agricultural, food, or
industrial residuals; biosolids (treated sewage sludge); yard trimmings, or source-
separated or mixed solid waste.
o Product must be certified as fully composted at a permitted solid waste
processing facility.
o Product must be registered with the Colorado Department of Agriculture and
approved for use on Colorado Certified Organic Farms by the Division of Plant
Industry of the State of Colorado.
o Product shall contain no solid particle greater than one-half inch in length or
diameter and be free from un-composted or non-stabilized wood bulking agents.
o Product shall contain no substances toxic to plants and shall be reasonably free
(<1% by dry weight) of man-made foreign matter.
o The compost shall possess no objectionable odors and shall not resemble the
raw material from which it was derived.
Page 111
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 9
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• In addition, the applicant shall provide the City a signed statement that the compost has
been texted and meets the following standards:
o Organic Matter Content: 30 - 70% (dry basis)
o Soluble Salt Concentration (EC paste test): 5 dS (mmhols/cm) or less (as
received)
o PH range: 5.5 to 8.0 (as received)
o Final carbon to nitrogen ratio: 20:1 or less.
o Nutrient Content (dry weight basis): N 1% or above, P 1% or above, K 0.5% or
above.
o Bulk Density: 800 - 1,000 pounds/cubic yard
o Moisture Content: 35% - 55%
Primary Contact
Sean Chambers, Director of Water & Sewer, sean.chambers@greeleygov.com; Paul Trombino,
Public Works/Construction Standards, Paul.Trombino@Greeleygov.com.
Brighton, CO
Article 8, Landscape and Site Design, of Brighton’s Land Use and Development Code establishes
requirements for water-conserving landscaping:
• All landscape plans are required to incorporate soil amendments and use organic
mulches that reduce water loss and limit erosion.
• Plant areas are encouraged to receive soil amendments of at least three cubic yards per
1,000 square feet.
City staff reported that though these soil amendment provisions are included in the city’s
development regulations and apply to all development projects, they are typically not enforced.
There are no provisions in the code requiring an applicant to demonstrate that soil
amendments have been acquired or installed. Most site inspections take place after the soil has
been prepared and sod and other landscaping materials installed, and evaluations for
compliance are limited to whether the landscaping is consistent with the regulatory
requirements, not the specifics of soil amendment installation.
Primary Contact
Louis Morris, Project Coordinator, 303-655-2243, lamorris@brightonco.gov.
Page 112
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 10
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Other Communities
In addition to the programs listed above, we reviewed development codes, landscaping and
engineering criteria, and related manuals and regulations for Westminster and Greenwood
Village but did not identify regulatory approaches or standards of sufficient detail or difference
from those described above to justify inclusion in this report. While a number of Front Range
communities’ land development codes, engineering standards, or park and recreation manuals
refer to requirements for including soil amendments in the design and construction of
detention areas, we view these as public works standards rather than regulations intended to
apply to general landscaping.
Xeriscaping
Best Practices
This section identifies three communities that incorporate low-water-use landscaping
requirements in their land use regulations and that offer robust turf rebate programs to reduce
the number of water-intensive grasses and plants used in residential yards and commercial
spaces the City will want to consider. Five other valuable practices are included for further
consideration.
Castle Rock, CO
Background
The Town of Castle Rock has taken aggressive steps to promote and require water
conservation. Its landscaping regulations limit the types of turf that can be incorporated in new
development, and also operates two key programs that offer financial rebates to existing
residential and commercial property owners who implement specific low-water-use
landscaping techniques.
Landscaping Regulations
Castle Rock’s landscaping regulations limit the amount of high-water-use landscaping material
that may be installed. High-water-use grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and similar turf are
prohibited, and other types of turf are also restricted. Single-family and two-family lots that are
7,000 square feet or less in area are allowed to have turf over no more than 30 percent of the
lot. Lots larger than 7,000 square feet in area up to 17,000 square feet may have turf over no
more than 20 percent of the lot. Lots larger than 17,000 square feet in area may have turf over
no more than 20 percent of the lot, up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of turf.
Staff reports that they are developing updated regulations for new development that would
prohibit turf in front yards and limit the turf area in the back yard to a maximum of 500 square
feet. These proposed changes are part of the Town’s continuing efforts to reduce its water
consumption from an average gallons per capita per day (GPCD) of 118 today to 100.
Page 113
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 11
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Coloradoscape Renovation Program
Castle Rock’s Coloradoscape Renovation water-wise landscaping program is an effort to
encourage property owners to convert water-intensive landscaping into water-wise landscapes.
It provides incentives to current landowners to redesign their landscaping to be more water-
efficient in ways that are similar to the Town’s regulations for new development. The program
uses a variety of tools to encourage participation, including rebates, educational classes, and
the opportunity to water landscaping on days that would otherwise not be permitted. The
details of this program include:
• A rebate of $1.20 per square foot of turf removed on any existing development (not
new construction) that use Castle Rock water services. The City’s water service area
extends beyond City limits in some cases, so some unincorporated properties are also
able to participate.
• For residential customers, a minimum of 400 square feet (or the entire area of the yard,
if smaller) must be removed to qualify for a rebate. The City sets a maximum rebate
payment of $1,800, which translates to an eligible turf area of 1,500 square feet.
• Nonresidential customers are also limited to a maximum rebate amount of $1,800 for
removal of 1,500 square feet of turf.
• The replacement landscaping may be zero-water use or require a small amount of
water, consistent with the multiple landscaping options available through the
Coloradoscape program.
• To qualify for the rebate, nonresidential properties are required to have at least 50
percent of the landscaped area be made up of healthy, irrigated turf. Areas with dead or
unhealthy turf are deducted from the eligible square footage. The purpose of this
provision is to ensure the program is effective in reducing water usage, and not for
beautifying unirrigated landscaping.
• In addition to the rebate incentives, applicants are required to participate in a Water-
Wiser workshop to learn how to maintain a low-water yard effectively. Those who
complete the workshop are exempt from complying with the City’s regulations that
restrict watering to once every three days.
• Following the final inspection, compliance with the xeriscape standards is maintained by
adjustments to the property’s water irrigation budget. Like many communities, Castle
Rock Water uses a tiered structure, Tier 1 is the lowest fee schedule, Tier 3 the highest,
and Castle Rock Water imposes a surcharge for water use in excess of the Tier 3 cap.
Tier 1 rates are charged for indoor uses, and Tier 2 rates are charged for irrigation. The
water budget for Tier 2 is established by reference to the monthly water needs of the
irrigated plant material on the site. Typically, when a turf lawn is replaced with
xeriscape, the water needed for landscaping declines substantially, and the Tier 2 water
budget is reduced accordingly. If water is used for irrigation in excess of the water
budget, the higher Tier 3 rates or surcharge fees are imposed.
Page 114
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 12
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
In 2021, the City noted that participation was modest. There were 48 residential properties that
participated in Coloradoscape; 38 additional properties received an initial inspection but did not
qualify for the program or did not complete the sod replacement process. Four nonresidential
properties participated in Coloradoscape, with four additional properties not qualifying for or
completing the process.
City staff also noted that the Coloradoscape program is labor-intensive because it requires two
site visits by City staff in order to complete the rebate process. One visit occurs before turf
removal to demonstrate compliance with the terms of qualification. The second visit occurs
after turf removal and new landscaping installation in order to ensure the final result meets City
standards. Staff noted that accommodating property owner schedules and providing enough
Water-Wiser workshop sessions has been a challenge. In addition, some applicants who are not
eligible for the program (generally because they do not have existing high-water-use
landscaping) apply anyway, increasing administrative burden required to inspect the property
and confirm that the non-eligibility. The program also has a modest budget and available funds
can be quickly exhausted.
The residential application can be found here; the nonresidential application be found here.
Smart Irrigation Controller System
Castle Rock’s second incentive program is a rebate program for updating irrigation system
controllers to Smart Evapotranspiration (ET) irrigation controllers. Smart controllers automate
watering by adjusting the watering schedule based on the current moisture content of the soil
and local weather. This results in reduced run off and creates money-saving water efficiency
benefits to landowners.
Residential and nonresidential development are eligible to receive a rebate for installing Smart
ET irrigation controllers through the voluntary Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate program.
Participation in a Water-Wiser workshop is required to be eligible for these rebates.
Residential property owners can receive a rebate to cover 50 percent of the price of a Smart
controller, up to $200, while nonresidential property owners qualify for rebates to cover 50
percent of the cost of up to five controllers.
Primary Contact
Rick Schultz, Town of Castle Rock Water Efficiency Supervisor, 720-733-6027
Page 115
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 13
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Aurora, CO
Aurora has decided that lush, green lawns of Kentucky bluegrass require levels of that the City
cannot continue to serve over the long run. Aurora has adopted regulations and financial
incentive programs that act as “carrots and sticks” to encourage implementation of xeriscape
principles and the use of other water-conservation techniques on landscaping throughout the
community.
Landscaping Regulations
Aurora’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) includes extensive water-conservation
measures, a fact that is emphasized by the title of a key chapter of the UDO, “Landscape, Water
Conservation, Storm Water Management.”
Section 4.7.3, General Landscaping Standards, integrates water-conservation measures
throughout all required site landscaping. All shrubs, perennials, groundcovers, and ornamental
grasses, and 75 percent of all annuals and trees, are required to be selected from the city’s
Water-wise Plant List, a xeriscaping fact sheet maintained by the Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension, or other Water-wise or xeriscape plant material references. The list of
eligible materials is currently being updated. Except for playfields and golf courses, cool-season
grass sod and seed is limited to 33 percent of a site’s landscaped area, and all cool-season
grasses must generally be contiguous. Separate irrigation hydrazone areas are required for
water-conserving areas versus non-water-conserving areas.
Section 4.7.4 prohibits private covenants that purport to invalidate the xeriscaping provisions in
the UDO.
Section 4.7.5 incorporates additional specific landscaping requirements relating to water
conservation. Single-family detached and duplex dwellings on lots 4,500 square feet or larger
may install no turf at all, or may install between 400 and the lesser of 40 percent or 1,000
square feet of turf, provided that the turf areas are continuous. Homeowners can choose to
follow Water-wise options that allow additional landscaping flexibility. Rock or inorganic
mulches may be used in the front yard if a Water-wise option is chosen, and permeable pavers
such as brick and natural stone can be used on up to 40 percent of the landscape area if a xeric
or no-turf option is used. In all cases, rear yards on single-family and duplex lots with no public
view may include no more than 45 percent turf. If the rear yards are visible to the public (for
example, in a through lot), the front-yard standards apply.
An image from the UDO of a suggested front-yard landscaping configuration is included below.
Page 116
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 14
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Compliance with the landscaping regulations is verified during zoning inspections. Irrigation
systems are also inspected and are required to comply with regulations in the Aurora
Engineering Standards Manual.
Staff is proposing amendments to the UDO to further limit the use of high-water grasses. This
summer, the City Council is anticipated to consider a proposal to prohibit the use of cool-
season turf in the front yards of all new houses, as well as in tree lawns or curbside landscaped
areas.
Water-Wise Landscaping Program
To incentivize residents to retrofit their properties to avoid water-intensive landscaping, Aurora
Water created the Water-Wise Landscaping Rebate Program, which includes detailed manuals
on compliance for both residential and commercial properties. The program pays residents to
eliminate water-intensive varieties of turf such as Kentucky bluegrass and fescue and promotes
the exclusive use of xeric landscaping for all plants included in the landscape design.
Aurora offers a rebate up to $3,000 for residential lawns from which at least 500 square feet of
water-intensive grass is removed. The proposal for removal must include at least 60 percent of
the water-intensive grass located in a front or side yard and visible to the public. The rebate is
calculated using pre-tax material (not labor) costs, verified by inspection of receipts for
materials purchased, as well as the amount by which the water bill is reduced after one growing
season. Unlike other communities that determine rebate amounts based on the square footage
of converted landscaping, Aurora’s program reimburses property owners for documented
money spent on the plants and materials purchased to be installed in their place.
Sixty-five percent of the rebate is paid after final installation, and the remaining 35 percent is
paid following one growing season if the property owner demonstrates that actual water use is
less than 110 percent of the recommended xeric water use amount.
Page 117
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 15
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
As part of the program, applicants are required to enroll in the “Know Your Flow” program
which educates about the appropriate levels of indoor and outdoor water use.
The landowner establishes eligibility for the rebate by providing photographs of the existing
healthy turf, which also must be visible to the public, and by submitting a proposed alternative
landscape design. Previously, the City also reviewed the landowner’s existing water use to
ensure the project would result in a reduction of water use, but it stopped doing so because the
water use could reflect underwatering of areas of landscape other than the turf.
The program provides free design services for property owners and offers optional virtual and
in-person Water-wise landscaping classes on how to tend to low-water landscaping and how to
save water and money. Staff noted that Aurora would be moving to a new program in which
applicants take a design class and work with instructors to develop a design for their own site,
with the goal of making the design process a little more efficient.
A separate rebate program is offered for large and commercial properties. The commercial
rebate covers all documented material (not labor) costs for the approved project, based on a
schedule of item-by-item rebate amounts, up to a maximum of $15,000. Half of the rebate is
paid upon final installation and approval of the system, and the remaining half in two equal
installments after each of the next two growing seasons documenting water use less than 110
percent of the xeric recommended water use amounts. All approved participants are required
to participate in the Large Property Variance Program, which provides monthly emails that
evaluate the site’s actual water usage based on recommended water consumption. This
information is designed to help participants monitor their water efficiency and may identify any
scheduling adjustments required to ensure receipt of the remaining rebate payments.
Previously, under both the residential and commercial programs, two inspections were
required. The first inspection took place after plants and irrigation had been installed to confirm
everything had been installed according to plans. The second and final inspection was
performed after issues identified in the initial inspection are addressed and the mulch is
installed. However, the City recently eliminated the second inspection, as being generally not
necessary or helpful to ensure compliance with the program.
The City reports that the program has been successful with commercial properties. By contrast,
it has underperformed in residential neighborhoods, with fewer than 25 rebates issued to
single-family residences in the last year, a low level of participation even on a per-capita basis.
Staff suggested that the low participation rate is a function of the complexity of the program,
the high cost of re-landscaping even with the Water-Wise rebate, and the fact that the rebate
covers only material costs (and not labor costs).
Xeric Landscaping Credit Program
To incentivize the implementation of xeric landscaping, Aurora also created a Xeric Landscaping
Credit program. The program is designed to encourage the use of xeric landscaping that does
Page 118
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 16
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
not require irrigation in so-called “z-zones.” Implementation of zero-water landscaping includes
the installation of an irrigation meter that is used only while the native xeric plants are
acclimating to their new environment. After the plants have matured and no longer require
watering, the irrigation meter is removed from the z-zone. Other portions of the landscaping
may continue to be irrigated and permanent irrigation meters remain in place for those areas.
This allows savings in initial landscaping installation costs for developers and encourages them
to install native, low-water landscapes in common areas watered by irrigation meters. This
program is only available to new irrigation-only connections. Existing residential and
commercial meters that measure indoor and outdoor use are not eligible. Irrigation meters can
be installed in both new residential and commercial properties, and the cost of the connection
charges varies based on the type of landscape on the property:
• Irrigation systems for non-water conserving landscapes can be connected a rate of
$3.05/sq. ft. (or $30,500 for 10,000 square feet of landscaped area).
• Irrigation systems for water-conserving landscapes can be connected at a rate of
$1.63/sq. ft. (or, $16,300 for 10,000 square feet of landscaped area).
• In a z-zone, the irrigation system can be connected for no cost, subject to a $20,000
deposit that is refunded after the three-year establishment period has run and the
irrigation system is removed.
The following conditions must be met to establish a z-zone and qualify for the irrigation refund:
• The developer must express interest early on in the building process.
• The developer must submit a hydrozone map as part of the landscaping plan that
delineates no-water, low-water, and high-water areas. If there are multiple irrigation
meters, each must be clearly indicated on this map.
• The hydrozone map is paired with a water budget that applies during the xeric plants’
three year establishment period. The budget allows for a maximum amount of water
that should be used to establish the xeric landscaping. It also employs a reduced
assessment for the gallons of water used. However, if the number of gallons used
surpasses the maximum allowed amount of water, the assessment rate will be higher.
• After three years, Aurora Water will use the irrigation meter readings to determine
whether the xeric landscaping was watered according to the water budget.
• If successful in complying with the water budget and establishing xeric landscaping, the
irrigation meter is removed and the $20,000 deposit refunded.
If landscape development is occurring in phases, the responsible parties must contact Water
Conservation and submit a phasing map.
Staff stated that the program was paired with significant increases in the City’s tap fee for
outdoor-only use and that it has been highly successful, with a significant reduction in high-
water-use grasses on new development and an increase in native grasses.
Page 119
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 17
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Administrative Support
Overall, water conservation staff–part of the City’s Water Department, which is funded
separate from the City’s general fund–consists of nine full-time employees and up to 15
seasonal employees. One person is responsible for managing the City’s rebate programs.
Several staff perform inspections, in addition to other duties.
Primary Contact
Tim York, Water Conservation Supervisor, City of Aurora, tyork@auroragov.org 303-326-8819
Albuquerque, NM
Landscaping Regulations
The City’s water conservation measures relating to landscaping are not located in its Integrated
Development Ordinance, but in City Code Sec. 6-1-1, Water Conservation Landscaping and
Water Waste. These regulations limit the amount of landscaping that can use high-water-use
turf. Non-city owned properties other than golf courses and single-family residences may cover
only 20 percent of the landscaped area with high-water-use turf and other restricted plants,
with a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 3,000 square feet allowed. In addition,
the ordinance voids homeowners’ association restrictions or covenants that restrict the use of
xeriscape.
According to staff, while existing single-family dwellings are excluded from the landscaping
regulations, new single-family home developments must comply, so a developer who is
preparing a 60-lot single-family subdivision is subject to the high-water-use turf restrictions.
Staff also reports that existing single-family dwellings have made great strides in reducing
overall water usage, measured by both external irrigation use and internal water use, so
updating the turf regulations to include existing single-family development has not been a
priority.
Rebate Administration
The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (“Water Authority”) has a variety of
incentive programs. These programs are operated by a staff including six full-time employees
and four seasonal employees. Staff includes an administrator who processes applications,
answers customer calls, and answers questions; a xeriscape inspector whose full-time job is to
inspect sites applying for xeriscape rebates (about three to four inspections per day), and
conservation specialists who focus on overall water conservation measures with homeowners’
associations and multifamily developments. The Water Authority also uses a contractor who
provides leak audits, inspections, and water management tools to their large users.
Page 120
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 18
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Xeriscape Rebate Program
The Water Authority has a Xeriscape Rebate program that provides a rebate on a water utility
bill if the customer replaces traditional landscaping with low-water use xeriscaping. The
program has existed for almost 20 years and has resulted in the conversion of 4,700 single-
family residential and 600 commercial properties to low-water landscaping. In total, 10 million
square feet of turf have been replaced with xeric landscaping. Currently, about 400,000 square
feet of landscaping is converted to xeriscaping each year, and staff hopes a recent increase in
payments from $1 to $2 per square foot of high-water-use turf removed and replaced will
increase participation to 1,000,000 square feet per year.
There is no minimum removal requirement, as the goal to replace as much aging, water-
intensive landscaping with xeric landscaping as possible. While applicants sometimes do not
understand that they are required to have healthy living turf to qualify for the rebate, staff try
to interpret the requirement leniently to encourage removal of turf and implementation of
higher-quality xeric landscaping. In addition, large turf removal projects may be done in phases.
Eligibility for the rebate is confirmed through two inspections:
• The first inspection can occur before an application is filed and involves a site visit from
a Water Authority staff member who measures the area, provides landscaping tips, and
estimates a potential rebate amount. Alternatively, the first inspection can occur after
the application is submitted, with staff visiting the site to ensure that the current
landscaping proposed to be removed consists of healthy, spray-irrigated turf.
• The second inspection occurs after the xeric landscaping is installed. During this
inspection, staff verifies that the plants included in the landscaping plan are installed on
the property. The required number of plants is determined by reference to a point
system that assigns a certain number of points to each plant, and the final landscaping
must meet a certain number of points. (For example, to convert 1,000 sf of turf, the
applicant must install 500 points of plants, and a low-water-use tree might be worth 50
points). The inspector also confirms that at least 50 percent of the area for which a grass
removal rebate is awarded is covered with xeric plants, and that only drip irrigation (if
any) is installed.
Water Authority staff noted that the approved xeric plant list is flexible and that it is easy to
satisfy the plant requirements because the plant list includes 270 plants that are native to New
Mexico. In addition, Water Authority staff contact participants one year following the final
inspection to offer a consultation by an irrigation specialist. Participants who later are
suspected of overwatering may be contacted, but no other enforcement actions are taken
following final approval.
This program is notable for its relatively high reimbursement rate compared to other systems
and its successful track record. Staff said they expect that the recent increase in reimbursement
rates will incentivize more participation in the program.
Page 121
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 19
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Tree-Bate Program
The Water Authority also offers a Tree-Bate Program that offers customers 25 percent off the
cost of professional tree care services or for the purchase of a new low- or medium-water use
tree from the Water Authority Xeriscape Plant/Tree List Guide. The maximum rebate for
residential customers is $100 per year while nonresidential customers are eligible for up to
$500 per year in rebates.
Rainwater Harvesting Rebate
Under this program, the Water Authority provides rebates to property owners that acquire
barrels and cisterns to capture rainwater for use in irrigation or other purposes. The rebate
amount increases with the capacity of the barrel or cistern:
• $25 for 50–149 gallons in rain barrel or cistern capacity
• $50 for 150–299 gallons
• $75 for 300–499 gallons
• $100 for 500–999 gallons
• $125 for 1000–1499 gallons
• $150 for more than 1500 gallons
Efficient Irrigation Rebate Programs
The Water Authority offers five Efficient Irrigation Rebates for the installation of water-saving
irrigation controllers, sensors, pressure regulators, and sprinkler bodies and nozzles. These
rebate programs were just instituted in 2020, and represent a change from the Water
Authority’s prior focus on incentivizing indoor efficiency. About 150 households take advantage
of the program each year.
• The WaterSense Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate offers 25 percent of the cost of
irrigation controllers (up to $100 for residential and $500 for nonresidential customers)
• The Smart Flow Sensors Rebate offers 25 percent of the cost of smart flow sensors (up
to $100 for residential and $500 for nonresidential customers). These sensors
communicate the flow rate of water to the WaterSense irrigation controller to help with
leak detection.
• The Smart Pressure Regulators Rebate offers 25 percent of the cost of smart pressure
regulators (up to $100 for residential and $500 for nonresidential customers). Smart
Pressure Regulators (from a specific list of qualified products) are important for
optimizing delivery of water via sprinkler or drip irrigation to landscaping. This allows for
consistent water distribution throughout the irrigated area.
Page 122
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 20
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• The WaterSense Pressure Spray Sprinkler Bodies Rebate offers a $4.00 rebate per
sprinkler body with no annual limit. These WaterSense sprinkler bodies reduce water
waste by optimizing the rate of water expenditure to efficiently cover the landscape.
• The Smart High Efficiency Rotating Sprinkler Nozzle Rebate offers a $2.00 rebate per
nozzle with no annual limit. These smart nozzles apply the water stream at a lower rate
which allows the water and nutrients to better penetrate the soil.
Water Smart CPR Program
The Water Authority also offers a Water Smart Customized Performance Rebate (CPR) Program
to commercial customers. This program incentives landowners to update and improve existing
irrigation systems with smart irrigation systems that can save as much as 100,000 gallons of
water per year. This rebate program is performance-based to incentivize greater water savings.
A customer qualifies for $10 in rebates for every 748 gallons of water saved per year. The
maximum rebate is $50,000 or 50 percent of project costs, whichever is lower, and may include
costs such as materials, hardware, and software.
Landowners who apply for the program and whose applications are approved are assigned a
“CPR concierge” to guide them through the process of acquiring and installation the irrigation
system. The smart irrigation system must be installed within six months after the application is
approved, and the applicant must submit receipts for the cost of implementing the upgrades.
Within 30 days of completion, the property owner must schedule the post-installation
inspection where project cost estimates are revised based on inspection findings. The final
rebate amount is determined after 12 billing cycles (one year) after project completion, and the
rebate is then applied to the water bill. The property owner must commit to sustaining the
project for five years or until the property title is transferred, whichever occurs first. About 150
landowners participate in the program annually.
Customer Outreach
To target areas where significant water savings may be possible, the Water Authority does
targeted outreach to the top five percent of water users within each ZIP code. This outreach
includes offers for a free consultation to determine ways to save water, such as changes to the
landscaping, changes to the irrigation schedule (over-watering is a common problem), and
simple changes to the irrigation system such as replacing spray bodies. Of the approximately
5,000 landowners contacted each year, about 100 reach out to the Water Authority for water-
saving advice, while others reduce water usage on their own. About 100,000 email addresses
are subscribed to the Water Authority’s newsletter, called “505 Outside,” and the Water
Authority does other advertising such as outdoor billboards and television ads.
Primary Contact
Carlos A. Bustos, Water Conservation Program Manager, cbustos@abcwua.org
Page 123
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 21
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Other Valuable Practices
Tucson, AZ
Due to its location in the Sonoran Desert, the City of Tucson has implemented a host of water
conservation measures, including several relating to landscaping. The City’s Unified
Development Code (UDC) includes restrictions on the types of plants that may be used in
landscaping (Section 7.6.4, Landscape Standards), and those regulations have been effective in
replacing existing water-intensive vegetation with more drought-tolerant varieties.
In general, all plants must be chosen from the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ low
water use/drought tolerant plant list, which includes only those plants that can survive in the
Sonoran Desert without using significant water resources. Areas that have been graded and
seeded must use Native Seed List approved species listed in the City’s technical standards. The
landscaped area must also be designed to take advantage of storm-water runoff and/or include
a water-conserving irrigation system.
Other plants may be installed only in defined “oasis areas” that will return maximum benefit in
terms of cooling, aesthetic pleasure, and exposure to people, or for special uses such as public
parks and botanical gardens. In multifamily residential developments, only five percent of the
site, 100 square feet per dwelling unit, or eight percent of the open space (whichever is greater)
may be a designated oasis area. For all other uses, no more than 2.5 percent of the site may be
an oasis area. Oasis areas are encouraged to be located near main buildings, active use areas,
pedestrian areas, and outdoor seating and gathering areas.
Although the City’s restrictions limiting the use of turf to oasis areas and other water-
conservation landscaping requirements do not apply to single-family dwellings, staff reports
that the conservation ethos in Tucson is strong and that turf is rarely found in the front yards of
single-family homes.
City staff noted that this program requires fairly intensive administration due to the need for
regular inspection and enforcement. When applicants have trouble complying with the detailed
specifications of the code, staff work to ensure that the landscaping meets the intent and
purpose of the ordinance. Tucson Water has spearheaded public outreach to educate property
owners on the requirements. Staffing continues to be a challenge both for public outreach and
enforcement of the regulations. There is only one staff member who reviews landscape plans
for compliance with regulations (although the City plans to hire more) and only three
inspectors. The final constructed landscaping and trees are not always installed or maintained
consistent with the approved plans, and the City is not aggressive about enforcing compliance.
A Green Storm Water Infrastructure fee of $0.13/100 cubic feet (748 gallons) of water, first
assessed in 2020, raises about $3 million per year to help divert and harvest storm drainage
from public streets and parking lots to vegetated water harvesting areas. The City has also
Page 124
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 22
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
recently instituted a requirement that captured rainwater supply 50 percent of landscaping
irrigation needs.
Staff reports that the overall program has been successful and that Tucson ranks high in water
conservation among Arizona municipalities.
Primary Contact
Anne Warner, Lead Planner, Planning and Development Services, Landscape/NPPO Section,
anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov
Scottsdale, AZ
Land Use Regulations
Section 49-245 of the Scottsdale Code of Ordinances sets forth limitations on water intensive
landscaping and turf areas for new schools, churches, resorts, hotels, motels, and cemeteries,
and Section 49-246 does the same for new multi-family residential, commercial/industrial, and
nonresidential uses.
• Section 49-245 requires that all new facilities limit water intensive landscaping and turf
areas, with the majority of landscaping required to be from the Arizona Department of
Water Resources’ Low Water Use Plant List. Churches and schools are required to limit
water-intensive landscaping to 15 percent of the total lot area, while resorts (including
hotels and motels) are limited to between five and 10 percent of the total lot area.
• Sec. 49-246 requires that all new commercial and industrial sites limit the use water
intensive landscaping and turf areas to 10 percent of the lot area for sites 9,000 square
feet or less. For larger sites, the first 9,000 square feet are limited to 10 percent water-
intensive plants and the remainder of the site is limited to five percent water-intensive
plants. For these uses, all plants installed must comply with the Low-Water Use Plant
List.
Notwithstanding the lack of regulations prohibiting turf use on single-family residential
property, staff generally does not see excessive turf installed on new single-family residential
development. In addition, the northern part of the City (which is where much recent
development has occurred) includes land designated as Natural Area Open Space which cannot
be developed or irrigated. Most turf is found in South Scottsdale, which has long been
developed and where the incentive programs are the approach used to encourage a transition
to more water-conserving landscaping.
Rebate Programs
The City also offers a variety of rebate programs that are codified in Section 49-243 of the City’s
ordinances. A single-family residential property can receive $1 per square foot of turf removed,
with a maximum rebate of $5,000 and a minimum turf removal requirement of 500 square feet.
Page 125
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 23
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
The turf must be replaced with City approved low-water-use plants and other compatible
landscaping material, and the City’s Water Conservation Staff are required to verify eligibility
before turf is removed. Rebates are not paid until the replacement landscaping is installed. The
current rules require that the first 1,000 square feet of replacement landscaping is the
homeowner’s choice, but the second 1,000 square feet has to be a xeriscape landscape with 25
percent mature plant coverage. Existing plants, including high-water plants but excluding turf,
can be used to meet the plant coverage standard. While the program terms and conditions
state that the landscaping may be inspected in the future for continued compliance, in practice
those have not occurred.
New rules scheduled to be implemented July 1, 2022, will change some of the rebate program
rules. The 500 square foot minimum will be eliminated and the rebate amount will increase to
$2 per square foot, although the maximum rebate will remain $5,000. The revised rules may
include a requirement that sprinkler heads be decommissioned for the second 1,000 square
feet of landscaping as well.
Three staff members have been performing inspections, and the City has recently hired two
additional inspectors. At times, the pre-inspection is performed using photography provided by
the applicant, but other times an inspector visits the site. There is at least one in-person
inspection for each rebate.
Staff reports that about one-third of those who enter the program are awarded a rebate. Some
enter the process but never complete it or do not comply with the program terms (e.g., they
want to install more artificial turf than the program allows). About 150 are awarded rebates
each year, although staff is hopeful the increase in rebate and the removal of the minimum turf
requirement will increase participation.
Multi-family residential and commercial properties can receive rebates for a minimum of 2,000
square feet of turf removal. Properties with up to 10,000 square feet are eligible for up to
$10,000 in rebates (limit one per year and two per lifetime), and properties with more than
20,000 square feet of turf are eligible for up to $20,000 in rebates and one per lifetime. Staff
reported that fewer than 10 landowners participated in the program in 2021. However, with an
increase in water bills scheduled to take place in November, staff expects increased interest in
the program. While only six homeowners’ associations reached out to participate in water-
saving programs in fiscal 2021, in the first six months of the current fiscal year 40 homeowners’
associations have contacted the City.
Incentives are also offered for removal of pool and spas. While not often used, staff reports
that it is often cost-effective for homeowners with aging pools who would have to pay as much
or more to repair or remodel the old pool. The City offers $200 plus $1 per square foot of pool
removed.
Page 126
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 24
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Rebates for installation of a WaterSense irrigation controller are also offered. For single-family
residential properties, the maximum is $250 per controller or the cost of the controller, if less;
multi-family and commercial properties, as well as nonresidential common areas, are eligible
for rebates for up to 50 irrigation controllers, at a maximum rebate of $400 per controller.
Primary Contact
Elisa Klein, Water Conservation Program Supervisor eklein@scottsdaleaz.gov
San Antonio, TX
The City of San Antonio uses a combination of techniques to preserve water in landscaping. In
2021, the City’s Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) water consumption rate was 111 gallons,
which was lower than average due in part to a wet summer. San Antonio’s goal is to reduce the
GPCD to less than 100 gallons.
Landscaping Regulations
The City requires all plants in the city to be chosen from a list of drought-resistant plants in
Appendix E of the City’s Unified Development Code. The recommended plant list is specifically
tailored to xeriscape planting methods, and all are water-friendly. City staff noted that this
plant list is limited and could include additional drought-tolerant species. However, applicants
are permitted to propose the use of other shrubs or plants, provided they are native or near-
native and the applicant can demonstrate they can survive in the area with limited or no
irrigation. The City enforces compliance with the regulations through site visits performed by a
team of five inspectors.
Drought Ordinance
Water conservation is also emphasized through the City’s drought ordinance, enacted in 2014,
which is tied to existing conditions in the Edwards Aquifer that provides much of the water for
the city. Once aquifer levels fall below 665 feet (measured as elevation above mean sea level),
the City begins preparation for drought restrictions. These restrictions are “staged” in four
levels based on the level of the aquifer and are enforced by the City. During all stages, irrigation
of commercial and residential properties is staggered based on the property’s address.
• In Stage I, which is implemented when the aquifer has dropped to 660 feet, irrigation
with a soaker hose, hose-end sprinkler, or in-ground irrigation system is only permitted
between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 a.m. on weekdays specified by address.
• In Stage II, which is triggered when the aquifer has dropped to 650 feet, the irrigation
methods allowed in Stage I may only take place from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Irrigation with a drip irrigation system or five-gallon bucket is allowed
during Stage II at any hour of the day, as is irrigation with a handheld hose.
• In Stage III, which is triggered once the aquifer has dropped to 640 feet, irrigation is only
allowed every other week on the designated days beginning on the second Monday
Page 127
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 25
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
after Stage III has been declared, between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and between 7:00
p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Irrigation with a drip irrigation system or five-gallon bucket is
allowed on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and irrigation with a handheld hose
is allowed at any time on any day.
• In Stage IV, which is triggered at the City Manager’s discretion following a 30-day
monitoring period once Stage III has been declared, the Stage III irrigation requirements
remain in effect, but a surcharge is assessed on nonresidential San Antonio Water
Service accounts whose consumption exceeds 5,236 gallons per month and residential
accounts whose consumption exceeds 12,717 gallons in a billing cycle.
Rebate Programs
The City also offers a variety of rebate programs through its wholly owned public utility, the San
Antonio Water System (SAWS). For residential clients, SAWS offers landscaping coupons that
provide $100 coupons for landowners planning to remove grass. A landowner can receive one
$100 coupon for each 200 square feet of grass and sprinklers proposed to be removed, and can
redeem coupons at participating plant vendors. Once the plants are installed, the landowner is
required to send a photograph back to SAWS and, if approved, the landowner can participate in
additional SAWS rebate programs.
Water conservation staff reported that the coupon program was implemented in 2014 and
replaced an earlier program that involved pre-rebate and post-rebate inspections and more
extensive requirements to update landscaping. SAWS has found that the rebate program is
more popular, and in particular was used much more by lower-income households who were
less likely to engage in more holistic landscape makeovers. While staff noted that the biggest
water savings come from instituting xeriscaping on higher-income households, which generally
have larger landscapes and are willing to spend more on water, they believe it is important to
reach the entire community. However, staff also noted that a separate “Outdoor Living”
program will be implemented on June 1, 2022, which will be an inspection-based program that
encourages households to revise their landscaping to contain no more than 1/3 turf, 1/3
planting area, and 1/3 pervious living area such as pavers.
An irrigation rebate program allows residential homeowners to earn up to $5,000 for removing
their irrigation system or making it more efficient. The largest rewards are offered for removal
of active irrigation systems, and smaller rewards are offered for removal of non-functional
irrigation system, removal of an irrigation zone, conversion from spray to drip irrigation, and
other conservation-friendly efforts. SAWS also offers a separate irrigation consultation program
at no cost to homeowners that provides recommendations for revising an irrigation schedule.
These efforts, according to staff, are generally effective in reducing water usage.2 Staff has
2 Staff reported that it can be tricky to evaluate the effectiveness of individual programs due the variability of
weather and other extrinsic factors that may affect water usage. For some projects they try to do a randomized
Page 128
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 26
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
found that many households over-irrigate their landscapes, and that by providing a consultation
that involves modifications to the irrigation schedule, along with less wasteful irrigation
equipment, these households use significantly less water.
For commercial water users, SAWS has implemented a custom rebate program that offers
payments for the implementation of a variety of water-conservation techniques. The amount of
the rebate depends on the amount of water saved, and eligible options can include installation
of smart irrigation systems, upgrades to irrigation systems to include water-saving technology,
replacement of irrigated landscaping with xeriscape landscape, and other actions. SAWS also
offers a commercial irrigation rebate program similar to the program offered to residential
homeowners. Savings are based on the acre-feet of water use that the modifications are
projected to eliminated, based on estimates that staff has developed over time. However, it is a
complex program, and staff is investigating whether more straightforward, menu-based options
would increase participation.
Rewards Program
SAWS also encourages water-conserving landscaping through a points-based WaterSavers
Rewards program. Participants can earn points by attending events relating to water-efficient
landscaping. These events are sponsored by third-party organizations (some of which are under
contract with SAWS) and approved by SAWS. With the points earned, participants receive
coupons at local retailers that can be used towards water-conserving materials such as plants,
mulch, compost, and rain barrels. Staff reports the program attracts between 100,000 and
200,000 attendees at events each year and has attracted a committed following.
Customer Outreach
The centerpiece of SAWS’ public outreach efforts is the Garden Style San Antonio website,
which provides water-conservation advice, as well as evapotranspiration-based accurate
watering advice and information about any current watering restrictions due to drought. More
then 20,000 people subscribe to the Garden Style newsletter, which provides watering advice
and information about other programs offered by SAWS.
Primary Contact
Herminio Griego, Assistant City Arborist, herminio.griego@sanantonio.gov
Karen Guz, Senior Director, Conservation, San Antonio Water System, karen.guz@saws.org
control trial by matching the participants in a rebate program with non-participants with similar household income
and pre-intervention water usage, but that it is complicated and difficult to implement.
Page 129
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 27
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Tree Protection and Tree Canopy Enhancement
Best Practices
Lake Forest Park, WA
Background
The City of Lake Forest Park, Washington is a small suburb of Seattle with a population
approaching 14,000 across approximately four square miles. The City has had one part-time
arborist since 2018, which was the first year the City hired an in-house employee dedicated to
forestry. The City previously relied on a resident that was an arborist and expensive consulting
services follow the retirement of the resident arborist to implement its tree protection and
canopy enhancement program.
Tree Protection
Chapter 16.14 of the Lake Forest Park Municipal Code is focused on tree canopy preservation
and enhancement.
• The City uses a two-tiered permit structure that prioritizes protection of “significant”
trees, trees in environmentally critical areas or buffers, and native tree species. A Minor
Tree Permit, which can be obtained without City Arborist review, generally requires
replacement of any trees removed from a development site (at a one tree to one tree
ratio as long as canopy coverage is equal to or greater than before). If 1:1 replacement
will not result in equal or greater tree canopy coverage, a Major Tree Permit based on
arborist review will be required.
• Any application for a Major Tree Permit requires approval of a tree replacement plan
that maintains canopy coverage or meets the canopy coverage goal for the property
(depending on the project type).
• The City offers a Proactive Forest Management Permits for property owners as a
method of expediting projects in exchange for increased collaboration with the City on
tree maintenance and management and following an arborist plan to maintain canopy
coverage. A similar Utility Forest Management Permit offers utility providers an
opportunity to work with the City on a plan to balance the needs of utility providers and
community goals for canopy coverage.
• Tree removal is generally not permitted in areas that the City has identified as
Environmentally Critical Areas and Buffers—regulated by Chapter 16.16—which includes
floodplain, stream buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erosion
hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. However, trees that present a risk (based on
defined standards), are causing damage to buildings and infrastructure, or are invasive
species, may be removed.
Page 130
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 28
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• The City Arborist notes that standards for protection of trees during construction are
vital but not something addressed in the Code. Current uncodified practice is to require
that the critical root zone be protect to a distance equal to one foot of radial distance
from the tree trunk for every one inch in tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The City
often negotiates for an even wider protection area.
• Historically, the City has required chain link fencing on pier blocks to protect the critical
root zone, but the City Arborist has found that pier blocks tend to be shifted around, so
the City is starting to require that fencing be attached to posts driven into the ground.
Lake Forest Park highlighted the following successes and challenges with enforcement of tree
protection regulations:
• The City is generally unable to do proactive code enforcement due to limited staff.
Because it is a small city, Lake Forest Park relies on a small number of highly active
residents that will report tree removal when they see it. Sometimes reports are made
related to removal of trees for which valid Tree Permits have been issued, but false
alarms are better than not knowing about the illegal removals for which permits have
not been issued.
• The City has a Tree Account for payment of fees and fines for tree removal, which is an
effective way to ensure a direct link between funds and tree programs. The process for
determining a fine is generally as follows:
o The City addresses violations of the Code by hiring an appraiser to determine the
value of the removed tree(s) and notifying the property owner (and sometimes
tree removal company) of the value to be paid. Local tree removal companies
have become well aware of the costs of removing a tree without a Tree Permit,
which has reduced the number of violations.
o The City Arborist highlighted the ability of a resident to provide the City with
information on the circumstances of the tree removal and to outline financial
hardship before paying the fine.
o Sometimes the City Attorney and an attorney for the Code violators meet to
agree on the final fee amount.
o In practice, the City Arborist noted that although the process of appraisal, fine,
appeal, and reaching agreement on the fine amount is generally effective, it is
also time consuming. To reduce this time commitment, the City has been
assessing a fine for unpermitted tree removals that is essentially double the cost
of the Tree Permit fee that should have been paid before removal, but only in
circumstances where the City Arborists agrees that the removed tree was one
for which removal would have been approved following the Code process.
Page 131
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 29
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Urban Canopy Management
Lake Forest Park has more tree canopy than most surrounding communities and generally
prioritizes protecting and expanding tree canopy more than neighboring communities. Existing
regulations have been successful in the following ways:
• The City has a clear understanding of parcel-by-parcel tree canopy coverage (see Canopy
Coverage Maps) and clear goals for canopy coverage by zoning district and lot size (see
Community Forest Management Plan). This information is used in determining tree
replacement requirements.
• The Code has clear definitions, which make it easier for staff to implement the Code and
for community members to understand what is expected. Valuable terms that are
defined by Code include:
o “Canopy coverage” means the area covered by the canopy of trees on the lot.
When a tree trunk straddles a property line, 50 percent of the canopy shall be
counted towards each property’s canopy coverage. The canopy coverage of the
immature trees and newly planted trees is determined using the projected
canopy areas in the Lake Forest Park general tree list.
o “Landmark tree” means a significant tree that is at least 24 inches in diameter
(DBH).
o “Significant tree” means a tree six inches or greater in diameter (DBH) or a
required replacement tree of any size. Dead trees shall not be considered
significant trees.
o “Exceptional tree” means a viable tree, which because of its unique combination
of size and species, age, location, and health is worthy of long-term retention, as
determined by the city’s qualified arborist. To be considered exceptional, a tree
must meet the following criteria:
The tree must be included in and have a diameter at breast height (DBH)
that is equal to or greater than the threshold diameters listed in an
adopted table;
The tree shall exhibit healthful vigor for its age and species;
The tree shall not be considered a significant risk in regard to existing
utilities and structures as evaluated per the tree risk assessment defined
in LFPMC 16.14.080(A)(1);
The tree shall have no visual structural defects that cannot be mitigated
by one or more measures outlined in the International Society of
Arboriculture Best Management Practices; and
If retained under current tree growth conditions, the tree can be
expected to remain viable with reasonable and prudent management and
care.
Page 132
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 30
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
o “Viable (tree)” means a significant tree that a qualified arborist has determined
to be in good health with a low risk of failure, is relatively windfirm if isolated or
exposed, is a species that is suitable for its location, and is therefore worthy of
long-term retention
• Although residents often expect that the City is responsible for maintenance of trees in
the public right-of-way, the Code makes it clear that the property owner is responsible
for those in the tree lawn along property frontages, even if they are located in the public
right-of-way.
• The City maintains a detailed Tree List that include information on the expected canopy
area of each species, typical characteristics, drought tolerance, and preferred soil type.
Lake Forest Park has also identified the following improvements that they would like to see in
the future:
• The City Arborist would like to see the Code have stronger standards for retaining trees
before allowing replacement. Currently, standards allow a tree to be replaced by a tree
that will mature into a tree with equal or greater canopy, but replacement trees take
years to mature and provide the same benefits as the original, removed tree.
• The City Arborist is concerned about recent changes to the Code that allow accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) more broadly and future efforts that could rezone areas to allow
for higher density housing, both of which could potentially result in the loss of tree
canopy. Historically, the City has not seen much development or redevelopment or its
generally large residential lots, so the Code may need to be updated to prevent canopy
loss due to more intensive development.
• The City Arborist would like to increase education of new and existing property owners
to prevent accidental and unpermitted tree removal.
Primary Contact
Ashley Adams, City Arborist, aadams@ci.lake-forest-park.wa.us, (206) 957-2804
Portland, OR
Tree Permits
Trees on private property and in City of Portland rights-of-way are regulated by Title 11 of City
Code, Trees, which is focused on implementation of the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan
(2004) and Urban Forest Action Plan (2007) and tracking progress on those initiatives. Title 11
establishes the Urban Forestry Program, including appointed supervisory boards and
regulations and procedures for tree permits, tree preservation, tree planting, and enforcement
of these regulations.
Page 133
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 31
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Chapter 11.30, Tree Permit Procedures outlines a highly nuanced approach to tree protection
with permits and standards varying based on ownership and location (private property or public
property/street) and the type of activities proposed. Trees that are designated as “Heritage
Trees” per Section 11.20.060 (“trees that because of their age, size, type, historical association
or horticultural value, are of special importance to the City”) earn the strongest level of
protection and regulation, and require approval by the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC) to
remove the designation (and subsequent removal of the tree). In other cases, the code requires
City Forester approval for any tree removal or maintenance.
Chapter 11.40, Tree Permit Requirements (No Associated Development), details the permit
requirements and review criteria when tree removal or maintenance is not associated with
development activity. This chapter generally applies to all street trees, City trees three inches or
greater in diameter, and private trees 12 or more inches in diameter (among other, more
specific situations). Permit standards and review criteria are organized into two categories: City
and Street Trees (Section 10.40.040) and Private Trees (Section 10.40.050).
City and Street Trees require a Type A tree permit, which requires City Forester review with no
public notice period or opportunity for the public to appeal, for the following:
• Tree planting;
• Pruning branches (greater than ½ inch) and roots (greater than ¼ inch);
• Removal of dead, dying, or dangerous trees (with one replacement tree required per
removed tree); or
• Removal of up to four healthy trees (per year) that are less than three inches in
diameter (with one replacement tree required per removed tree).
City and Street Trees require a Type B permit, which may result in a public notice period and
opportunity for public appeal of a pending City Forester decision, for removal of trees that are
greater than three inches in diameter if either of the following conditions apply:
• Tree for tree replacement of removed trees is required for trees less than 20 inches in
diameter (only if less than four healthy trees are removed per year). If any tree is 20
inches or larger in diameter or more than four health trees larger than 12 inches in
diameter are removed, trees replacement must be “inch for inch,” which means that
trees of an equivalent total diameter are required to be planted.
• Similarly, if any tree is 20 inches or larger in diameter or more than four healthy trees
larger than 12 inches in diameter are removed, public notice and opportunity for public
appeal of the City Forester approval is required.
Private Trees require a Type A permit for pruning native trees in specified overlay districts,
removal of a tree that is dead, dying, dangerous, a nuisance species, located within 10 feet of a
building, or no more than four healthy trees smaller than 20 inches in diameter are removed.
Page 134
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 32
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Any tree removal under a Type A permit requires tree for tree replacement. Removal of up to
four trees that are 20 inches in diameter or larger or removal of more than four trees larger
than 12 inches in diameter require a Type B permit, inch for inch replacement, and public
notice and opportunity for public appeal.
Chapter 11.50, Trees in Development Situations, details the permit requirements and review
criteria when tree removal or maintenance proposed as part of a development activity. A Tree
Plan is generally required for all development projects, unless:
• There are no private trees 12 inches or larger in diameter;
• There are no city trees six inches or larger in diameter;
• There are no street trees three inches or larger in diameter;
• The site or activity is exempt from on-site tree density standards; and
• The site or activity is exempt from street tree planning standards.
Sites larger than one acre (or where all work is occurring in the public right-of-way) may
establish a Development Impact Area that provides some flexibility for tree preservation and
planting. It also includes a requirement that one street tree be planted or retained for each full
increment of 25 linear feet of street frontage with the option of paying a fee-in-lieu if the
required number of trees cannot be provided.
Section 11.50.040, Tree Preservation Standards, details the standards for retention of trees and
mitigation of trees not preserved, both on-site and in the public right-of-way. Mitigation is
based on payment into the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund with the cost depending on the
size of tree(s) to be removed.
Chapter 11.45, Programmatic Tree Permits, outlines a program to avoid going through
individual Tree Permit applications for regular or continuing work by utilities and other public
agencies. Although the City Code does not generally apply to State and Federal lands or
highways), this permit establishes a method for the City to engage with these agencies to
ensure that City regulations are understood and followed while allowing less oversight of day-
to-day operations that could result in maintenance or removal of certain trees less than six
inches in diameter. Programmatic Tree Permits may be approved by the City Forester for up to
five years.
Tree Protection
Section 11.60.030, Tree Protection Specifications, offers both prescriptive and performance-
based option for protection of both privately- and publicly owned trees. Importantly, the
prescriptive path does not require any knowledge of trees or plants and is therefore frequently
used by homeowners and small developers. It has been adjusted over time and seems to work
well, based on the following standards:
Page 135
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 33
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• The root protection zone is one foot for each one inch in tree diameter;
• To provide flexibility for existing encroachments, provided the encroachment does not
affect more than 25 percent of the root protection zone and does not penetrate the
inner half of the zone radius;
• Six-foot chain link protection fencing on eight foot metal posts are required at the edge
of the root protection zone; and
• The same standards apply to protection of street trees unless the City Forester requires
more or less protection.
The performance path is most often used for larger projects and by larger developers because it
allows a professional arborist to create a plan for tree preservation that reflects any unique
circumstances of the project or site. The performance plan is reviewed for adequacy by City
staff.
Urban Canopy Management
To support the goals of the Urban Forest Action Plan to increase tree canopy coverage to 35-40
percent in residential areas, 15 percent in commercial/industrial areas, 30 percent in parks and
open spaces, and 35 percent in rights-of-way, Section 11.50.050 includes on-site tree density
standards that specify a minimum required tree area based on the size of the site and the type
and size of proposed and existing development. All new development and exterior alteration to
existing development above a certain valuation are generally required to comply with these
requirements, with a few exceptions. Applicant are provided with two options as follows:
• Option A requires the following minimum tree area:
o One- and two family residential: 40 percent of site or development impact area;
o Multi dwelling residential: 20 percent of site or development impact area;
o Commercial and mixed-use: 15 percent of site or development impact area;
o Industrial: 10 percent of site or development impact area;
o Institutional: 25 percent of site or development impact area; and
o Other: 25 percent of site or development impact area.
• Option B requires that the entire site area, minus existing and proposed building
coverage be designated as part of the tree canopy area.
This section also requires that the required tree area by planted with some combination of
canopy trees that meets specific standards for number of trees required per size of tree area
and the minimum required planting area per tree. The Code provides tree density credits
towards any required tree density for trees planted to meet required stormwater or
Page 136
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 34
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
landscaping requirements, existing healthy trees that are retained on-site, payments in-lieu of
planting, and flexibility for small sites where existing trees are retained.
Section 11.60.030, Tree Protection Specifications, outlines the minimum size and species
diversity for all trees required by this Code. Standards include the following:
• Broadleaf trees must be 1.5 inches in caliper for one- and two-family residential
development (on-site or on street) or on-site for all other development types.
• Broadleaf street trees are required to be a minimum of two inches caliper for multi-
dwelling residential and 2.5 inches caliper for all other types of development types.
• Coniferous trees are required to be at least five feet in height.
• Native trees are permitted to be ½ inch caliper less than required.
• When more than eight but fewer than 24 trees are required, no more than 40 percent
of trees may be of one species. When more than 24 trees are required, no more than 24
percent may be of one species. In some overlay districts all trees provided are required
to be native species.
Portland also uses some unique approaches to enforcement of tree planting, maintenance, and
removal requirements, including the following:
• Street trees are included in the warranty period for infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and
streets) that require a Public Works permit, which generally lasts two years. This means
that any required street trees that are damaged, poorly maintained, or die during the
warranty period are required to be replaced by the applicant. Staff noted that this has
worked well and does not require a separate process for enforcement.
• Penalties for failure to comply with the Code standard for trees and landscaping is based
on an internal document that is informed by the Technical Specifications of Chapter
11.60. The City’s current approach is not to make it more expensive to follow the Code,
which may disincentivize people from coming info conformance. This approach still
allows the City to require planting of three to seven trees when a tree is illegally
removed. City staff hopes to eventually establish an administrative manual outside of
the Code that clarifies penalties for noncompliance that can be easily updated if those
penalties change in the future).
• The City Forester is permitted to require payment (based on an adopted fee schedule)
into the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund instead of requiring replacement trees if
the Forester finds there is insufficient or unsuitable area to accommodate some or all of
the replacement trees within the street planting area or site.
Although not a complete success, City staff mentioned that they recently completed a study
showing that compliance with various landscaping standards varied from 50 to 75 percent. The
City currently enforces landscaping and tree regulations based on complaints by neighbors and
Page 137
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 35
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
concerned citizens, which can make it difficult to ensure that required landscaping on private
property is provided and maintained with limited resources.
Additional Portland tree-related regulations are documented in Title 33, Planning and Zoning.
Primary Contact
Rick Faber, Permitting and Regulation Coordinator, Urban Forestry Division of Portland Parks
and Recreation, Richard.Faber@portlandoregon.gov
Other Valuable Practices
San Antonio, TX
The San Antonio Unified Development Code (UDC) was amended in 2010 to include Section 35-
523, Tree Preservation. The regulations are based on a required minimum canopy coverage,
which is 38 percent for single-family residential properties, 25 percent for multi-family and
nonresidential properties, and 15 percent in the Community Revitalization Action Group (CRAG)
area, which generally encompasses central San Antonio. Based on these final tree canopy
coverage requirements, the applicant may use one of two methods for determining tree
preservation. The tree survey method establishes a minimum percentage of all diameter inches
of significant or heritage trees, or canopy area, which must be preserved or mitigated (e.g., 35
percent of six inch caliper trees are to be preserved on a single-family dwelling lot). The tree
stand delineation method requires a minimum percentage of tree canopy coverage (not
including floodplains and environmentally sensitive areas) to be preserved (e.g., 35 percent of
non-heritage tree canopy for any project that requires any permit after the master
development plan stage or 30 percent with a master development plan). San Antonio allows
various alternatives when trees that are required for preservation are removed, including a fee-
in-lieu payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund and protection and maintenance of natural areas
within the surveyed area.
The City also offers tree preservation incentives, which include:
• Reduction of one required parking space for every four diameter inches of trees
protected or mitigated on-site, up to a maximum of 15 percent of required parking
spaces (or 30 percent with approval of the Planning Director). Preservation of
woodlands and significant tree stands may qualify the site for a 50 percent reduction in
parking spaces;
• Reduction in sidewalk width or elimination of a sidewalk requirement;
• Additional tree protection credits for preservation of tree clusters;
• Credit for trees provided to meet required landscape buffers and on-site landscaping
(see Sec. 25-511, Landscaping);
• Credit for preservation of native understory plants alongside trees;
Page 138
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 36
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• Reduction of lot size and setback requirements for exceeding tree protection
requirements.
• Exemption from City tree protection requirements for projects certified under the Texas
Parks and Wildlife (TPW) Texas Wildscape Program;
• Credit for planting trees on the south and west sides of habitable buildings (to benefit
energy conservation);
• Additional credit for preservation of woodlands, significant trees, and heritage trees;
• Reduction of required tree canopy for athletic fields; and
• Additional credit for incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) to aid in
stormwater management.
San Antonio defines the root protection zone as being one linear foot of radial distance for each
one inch in tree diameter, which allows construction within five feet on one side of the tree.
Alternatively, the City allows applicants for multi-family and nonresidential development to
warranty the trees for five years to ensure trees are otherwise protected and maintained.
City staff noted that the codified list of approved plants and trees should be expanded and also
highlighted the need for more detailed direction in the Code and clearer definition of terms.
The San Antonio tree protection program is complex, but offers a variety of possible methods,
alternatives, and incentives for the City of Fort Collins to consider.
Primary Contact
Herminio Griego, Assistant City Arborist, herminio.griego@sanantonio.gov
Bloomington, IN
The City of Bloomington recently adopted an updated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
that includes a unique approach to preserving urban canopy during land-disturbance activities.
Section 20.04.030(i), Tree and Forest Protection establishes a minimum required canopy cover
based on how much of the property is currently covered with tree canopy as shown below:
• 80-100 percent baseline canopy cover requires 50 percent of that coverage to be
retained;
• 60-79 percent baseline canopy cover requires 60 percent of that coverage to be
retained;
• 40-59 percent baseline canopy cover requires 70 percent of that coverage to be
retained;
• 20-39 percent baseline canopy cover requires 80 percent of that coverage to be
retained; and
• 0-19 percent baseline canopy cover requires 90 percent of that coverage to be retained.
Page 139
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 37
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
This approach requires that more of the canopy be preserved when there is less canopy
available. City staff indicated that this approach is somewhat complicated because it requires
calculation and sometimes on-site review, but general found that the approach is fair to
developers and seems to work well. Section 20.04.080, Landscaping, Buffering, and Fences, also
establishes standards for landscaping on private property (including single-family dwelling
development) and in the public right-of-way, which includes regulations for species diversity,
minimum tree sizes, and protection of existing trees.
The City notes the following improvements to the UDO that could help with clarity and
implementation of the Bloomington Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Summary Report (2019):
• A clearer definition of “closed canopy,” or an alternative method of determining what
constitutes tree canopy.
• A requirement that trees located in boxes include suitable soils.
• A fee-in-lieu option, especially for sites where there are conflicts between existing and
potential planting areas and utility infrastructure).
• Coordination of tree-related regulations between Chapter 12.24, Trees and Flora, which
applies to street trees in the public right-of-way, and Title 20 of the Unified
Development Code, which governs private development.
City staff highlighted several enforcement challenges and potential solutions or alternatives.
The City needs:
• Clearer standards for tree-protective fencing during construction and better
enforcement of the required 10 foot setback beyond the dripline, which tends to be
encroached upon;
• Clearer direction on who determines when a tree is a “heritage tree,” which is defined
as “a tree that is unique and important to the community because of its species, age,
size, location, or historic significance;”
• An escrow payment program to ensure street tree maintenance. Currently, the City is
responsible for street tree replacement, and poor private maintenance of street trees
leads to higher costs to the City for tree replacement.
• Potentially updating UDO standards to require a minimum 10 foot wide tree lawn
(where possible) and greater emphasis on planting and protecting native trees.
• A bond funded program (2022) for tree planting with emphasis on creating a more
equitable urban canopy.
Primary Contacts
Linda Thompson, Senior Environmental Planner, thompsol@bloomington.in.gov; Beth
Rosenbarger, Planning Services Manager, rosenbab@bloomington.in.gov
Page 140
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 38
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
Boulder, CO
The City of Boulder Code adopted an Urban Forest Strategic Plan in 2018 to establish a policy
framework for urban canopy management. Today, the City offers limited protection for trees
on private property (see Chapter 9-9, Development Standards). During the development
process the applicant is required to identify all trees greater than four inches caliper and have a
qualified arborist conduct an inventory of the trees worthy of preservation. The City reviews
this inventory and works with the applicant on a tree protection plan, including identifying the
trees to be preserved and the fencing and measures required to ensure protection during
development of the property (see drawings 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, and 3.04). Trees required to be
preserved can be removed with payment of a mitigation fee.
Although the City does not currently have a permit process for removal of street trees, the City
Forester noted that the City would like to formalize the process with a permit (see Chapter 6-6,
Protection of Trees and Plants). Currently, the City Forester determines what trees are required
to be preserved and the mitigation payment to compensate the City for any removed trees.
Boulder uses the trunk formula method, which determines the value of trees to be removed
based on the value of similar sized trees in a local nursery, the cost of installation, and other
factors. Any tree that is illegally removed during the development process results in a
mitigation fee to be paid before other permits are issued. Otherwise, the City documents the
illegal tree removal and issues a fine (almost always) or requires replacement (rare because of
the large share of development that takes place on infill sites that are too small to
accommodate additional trees). Tree mitigation fees and fines go towards Capital Improvement
Projects in the Parks and Recreation Budget. The City Forester supports the use of mitigation
fees instead of tree replacement because it is easier to administer and because funds can be
carried forward from year-to-year so that mitigation fees collected late in the year aren’t lost
when trees cannot be planted during the winter. Boulder has an Approved Tree List to guide
tree planting in the right-of-way and on other municipal property, including information on tree
spacing, hardiness zone, water needs, canopy size, and soil preferences.
The City Forester did note the following challenges and potential improvements to Boulder’s
current Code and practices:
• Standards for mulching and irrigation of trees are only identified during the permitting
process and are otherwise difficult to enforce.
• The City could better educate property owners about when they are responsible for
care and maintenance of street trees. The City generally manages street trees adjacent
to residential properties and businesses manage those adjacent to their property.
Alternatively, the City could explore taking over responsibility for all street trees.
Page 141
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 39
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• The City should consider alternative arrangements to ensuring required trees are
maintained, including having developers prepay for cost of maintenance when the City
is required to provide maintenance. An escrow payment program has been considered
before, but it is not always clear which party should pay, or be responsible, or receive
any funds required to be rebated if not used within a specific period of time.
Primary Contact
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester, alexanderk@bouldercolorado.gov
Madison, WI
The City of Madison requires private development (except for one- and two-family dwellings) to
provide trees and landscaping through a menu of options in Section 28.142, Landscaping and
Screening Requirements. These regulations establish a point value for distinct types of
vegetation, which encourages the installation of higher quality (and larger) trees and requires a
greater number of “points” for larger lots. Higher points are also provided for protection of
“existing significant specimen trees” (those greater than 2.5 inches caliper) to prioritize
preservation of large trees over removal and replacement with smaller trees that take longer to
provide similar benefits. This section also requires any development that provides five or more
trees to provide a specified diversity of tree species (with greater diversity required when more
than 50 trees are provided) and at least three different street tree species per block. Once
landscaping is installed, however, the City does not require or enforce tree protection on
private property.
Trees in the right-of-way, however, are highly protected, primarily through Section 10.101,
Regulation of Tree Trimming, Pruning and Removal within the Public Right-of-Way of Any
Street, Alley or Highway). These standards require permits for tree trimming, pruning, and
removal of trees in the public right-of-way, which include requirements for tree inventories
and/or street tree report prepared by a certified arborist for any request to remove, prune, or
perform most construction activities. The reports are typically triggered by a proposal to do any
work that could impact the urban canopy or impact a tree that is six inches or greater in caliper.
The City noted that tree protection regulations are relatively cumbersome, but that developers
view the street tree report as a way to expedite the process because they can hire a certified
arborist to conduct the review.
Madison is unique for codifying detailed standards for how the City and any contractors must
protect trees in the right-of-way. Section 107.13 of the City’s Standard Specifications for Public
Works projects require that a five-foot area around each tree remain undisturbed, provide
information on what City Forester markings indicate, describe methods of root cutting to limit
damage to trees, lists best practices for trimming, pruning, and avoiding soil compaction, and.
establishes penalties for damage to trees. The City Forester noted that current practice has
Page 142
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 40
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
been to collect a deposit of $125 per trunk diameter inch (measured 4.5 feet above the ground)
prior to any work being done near trees. This ensures that the City is able to collect any
damages without hassle.
The City noted that they will be reviewing the City Code in the next year to ensure
implementation of the Urban Forestry Task Force Final Report (2019) and had the following
suggestions to improve the effectiveness of current standards.
• Codify standards for soil volumes and require a third-party review and approval for the
City to evaluate during the development review process.
• Modify parking lot landscaping requirements to require different parking lot tree
arrangements.
• Assess development regulations in urban neighborhoods where the required setbacks
are less than five feet, because it can prevent the full, healthy growth of trees if the
sidewalk width is also narrow.
• Explore recommendations from the Tree Board for improving maintenance of public and
private trees.
Primary Contacts
Heather Strouder, Planning Division Director, HStouder@cityofmadison.com; Marla Eddy, City
Forester, MEddy@cityofmadison.com
Seattle, WA
The City of Seattle’s 2020 Draft Urban Forest Management Plan has established a goal of
increasing tree canopy coverage to 30 percent by 2037. Currently, Chapter 25.11, Tree
Protection focus on preserving “exceptional trees” as opposed to thinking about the overall
urban canopy. This reflects an increase in interest in tree protection from citizens and elected
officials due to rapid development the past several years. Generally, Seattle has very few
standards related to the planting, preservation, or maintenance of trees on private property (no
tree removal permits, no tree planning requirements, no standards for tree size, no required
species diversity, etc.). Street trees have more protections (removal requires permit approval),
but standards for maintenance and replacement are minimal. Although Seattle takes a more
hands-off approach to tree preservation, they are in the process of updating some regulations.
Fort Collins may consider some of the following existing valuable practices:
• The City has developed an interactive tree list (using Tableau) to allow residents to tailor
any new tree plantings to site conditions (sun exposure, width of planting strip for street
trees, presence of overhead wires) and desired tree characteristics (drought tolerance,
size, native/non-native, and flower and fall colors). Voluntary planning does not require
any specific tree type or size to be provided.
Page 143
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 41
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
• Removal of a street tree without City approval results in a fine that is triple the cost of
the permit that should have been obtained prior to tree removal. The City is considering
alternative penalty structures (including charging a dollar value per caliper inch of the
removed tree), but staff notes that City officials are weary of fines that could
disproportionately impact underserved communities.
Primary Contacts
Chanda Emery, Senior Planner, Chanda.Emery@Seattle.gov; Nolan Rundquist, City Arborist,
Seattle.Trees@Seattle.gov
Fort Wayne, IN
Fort Wayne has struggled with the loss of large trees and clear-cutting of trees on private
property prior to or during the development review process, partly because existing regulations
are very permissive about tree removal (see Section 157.408, Landscape Standards). Over the
past decade, the City found that they have lost about six percent of existing tree canopy
coverage. The City is in the early stages of looking at solutions (and assessing community
support) for addressing the issue with new regulations and further implementing the City’s
Urban Forest Management Plan (2014), but does have the following regulations and practices
that have proven successful or provide lessons learned from current practice:
• To limit conflicts with trees and infrastructure in utility easements, the City recently
adopted provisions that allow landscaping to be provided elsewhere without requiring a
waiver of standards. This is not yet reflected in the Code.
• Instead of requiring that trees be replaced at one-tree-to-one-tree ratio, the City is
considering requiring tree replacement at a ratio of one-inch of tree caliper for every
one-inch of tree caliper being removed. The current standard is not resulting in quality
replacement trees.
• The City has been actively protecting about 1,000 of the highest value Ash trees (along
key corridors, in parks, etc.) with TREE-äge Insecticide Treatment and has removed
about 10,000 other Ash trees to manage Emerald Ash Borer damage. Any removed tree
is replaced with guidance from the Parks Department to ensure species diversity.
Otherwise, there is no species diversity requirement for new trees.
Primary Contact
Derek Veit, Superintendent of Urban Forestry, Derek.Veit@cityoffortwayne.org
Reno, NV
The City of Reno is in the process of updating standards for tree protection, installation, and
maintenance. Although this example does not offer an analysis of existing standards, it reflects
Page 144
Item 3.
Fort Collins Nature in the City 42
Additional Best Practices Report May 2022
related discussion with City staff about what is working well or proving to be challenging, this
community does offer an opportunity to see what another Western community is trying based
on best practices. The draft ordinance language (as of 3/28/22) is set for review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission, which has already been recommended to City
Council for adoption by the Urban Forestry Commission. The draft ordinance focuses on many
of the issues identified by the City of Fort Collins, including soil standards, tree protection
regulations, enforcement mechanisms, and updated definitions—all with the goal of improving
and expanding tree canopy. New standards in Chapter 8.32, Trees and Shrubs, and Title 18,
Land Development Code:
• Establish a landmark tree designation for tree protection on private property;
• Establish a process for removal of a public tree by an adjacent property owner;
• Establish a methodology for tree appraisal and financial assurances in public trees are
not adequately protected during construction;
• Clarify minimum soil volume and quality standards based on tree size;
• Increase quality standards for street trees and parking lot trees;
• Enhance standards for tree maintenance and replacement if required trees are
damaged or removed;
• Establish procedures for landscape permits if required landscaping is removed or
negatively impacted; and
• Expand penalties to apply based on number of trees impacted instead of applying the
penalty based on a particular property not following regulations.
Primary Contacts
Matt Basile, Urban Forester, basilem@reno.gov; Kelly Mullin, Principal Planner,
mullink@reno.gov.
Page 145
Item 3.
Forestry Division
Parks Department
413 S. Bryan Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.221.6660
forestry@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/forestry
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 24, 2022
To: Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager
Thru: Mike Calhoon, Parks Director
From: Kendra Boot, City Forester
Re: Follow-up regarding First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2022, Amending
Chapter 27 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to Forestry.
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to answer questions from the Council’s Consent Calendar
Follow-up of the June 21 meeting, regarding this ordinance and improving tree policies,
a Council Priority.
Discussion:
Both Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Pignataro mentioned that they were
expecting more changes regarding improved tree policies. The Chapter 27 code
amendments are the first step towards accomplishing Council’s priority around
improved policies, beginning with dedicating trees as important community
infrastructure.
Next Steps:
Staff is currently reviewing a draft report from Clarion Associates on a consultant driven
Land Use Code (LUC) Audit that benchmarked the City LUC with peer cities around the
country, as an additional step towards the priority. Staff will bring forward findings to a
Council Work Session in the fourth quarter of this year.
In addition, Forestry Staff has submitted a 2023/2024 budget offer to seek funding for
an Urban Forest Strategic Planning effort to establish more long-term implementable
action items to preserve and protect the community’s canopy.
Page 146
Item 3.