HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-10/12/2010-Work SessionFinancial Services
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2259
fcgov.com/business
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: October 21, 2010
To: Mayor and City Council
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer
Re: Oct. 12, 2010 Work Session Summary Follow up – 2011 & 2012 Budget
City Manager Darin Atteberry and Chief Financial Officer Mike Freeman reviewed three of the
seven BFO Outcomes:
- Economic Health
- High Performing Government
- Environmental Health
Council members raised various questions about each of the reviewed Outcomes. For
questions that were not able to be answered during the meeting, the answers to the majority
of those will be included in this memo. Some questions may require additional time to
adequately research and respond.
/sek
Attachment
Page 2 of 29
October 12th Council Member Requests re: Budget
Outcome: Transportation
1) Request from Leadership Team
Follow-on to DAR Trips by Purpose: While these may be standard categories of reporting
data, the categories are not necessarily clear for the reader. For example, there are two
categories of trips--medical and non-medical. By definition, would all other trips be "non-
medical?" Or, what is the difference between "non-medical" and nutritional? It's very difficult
for the reader to understand what the categories mean and where there might be overlays.
For some policy makers, it is meaningless data. So, can staff work on a list that would
perhaps re-organized the categories.
Response from Kurt Ravenschlag
Description # of Trips % Description # of Trips %
Educational 215 0.5% Educational 13 0.8%
Medical 6,852 17.3% Medical 125 7.3%
Nutritional 448 1.1% Nutritional 1 0.1%
Personal 11,236 28.3% Personal 825 47.9%
Shopping 3,711 9.4% Shopping 75 4.4%
Social 5,111 12.9% Social 481 27.9%
Work 12,079 30.5% Work 201 11.7%
Total 39,652 100.0% Total 1,721 100.0%
TOTAL SERVICE NIGHT SERVICE
DIAL A RIDE - 2009 TRIPS BY PURPOSE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Questions from Leadership Team
Follow-on to Passenger Revenue Recovery (Transfort): If ours is at 18.3, what is the industry
norm? Is 18.3 good, not good, or neutral? Could staff address this in the next memo of
budget questions and answers that goes out to Council?
Response from Kurt Ravenschlag
Transfort is slightly below average in terms of fare revenue recovery. The average fare
revenue recovery in similar-sized communities (100,000-150,000 population) is 21% of the
operating expenses; Transfort’s 2009 fare revenue recovery was 18.3%.
Page 3 of 29
An opportunity for fare increases without substantial ridership loss may be within the various
pass programs (i.e. monthly pass, annual pass, senior pass, disabled pass). Transfort staff
will provide a recommendation in 2011.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Culture, Parks and Recreation
3) Request from Kelly Ohlson
In addition to the cost recovery data by each major Recreation facility (previously provided to
Council), please also provide the cost recovery data for the Gardens on Spring Creek and the
Fort Collins Museum
Response from Marty Heffernan
Please refer to Appendix #1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Economic Health
4) Question from Kelly Ohlson
How many times did we power wash the sidewalks in 2009 and so far in 2010
Response from J.R. Schnelzer
The current (2010) process for sidewalk and corner maintenance in the downtown area along
College Avenue includes six (6) annual power washing along the sidewalks between the
corners. These washings take place during time periods when weather conditions will not
cause freezing, usually between May and October. Five (5) of these washings have occurred
this year with the final washing taking place shortly.
The corner areas are washed weekly, again depending on weather. These washings have
been occurring regularly except for a short disruption in service due to the default of the
contracted concessionaire. A new company was hired to fill the remainder of the contract.
This is the same frequency that occurred during 2009 and the same as proposed in the 2011
budget.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5) Request from Kelly Ohlson
Please summarize the changes made to the policy regarding repeat offenders for false
alarms and what are we doing to address any remaining issues?
Response from Jim Szakmeister
Statistically, we still show that 99% of the time the alarms are false. However companies and
homeowners are being more responsive in attending to their alarm problems as a result of
the Alarm Performance Standards instituted in 2002. (See below). If these performance
standards are not met based on the frequency of false alarms, we address the problem
alarms by placing these chronic offenders on a “Non Response” list. Currently there are 321
locations on this “Non-Response” list for burglar alarms. As a result of these protocols, we
Page 4 of 29
have been able to significantly reduce the number of chronic alarm offenders. While we will
never eradicate this problem, there has been significant mitigation.
I have also included the table below to exhibit the overall reduction in alarms over the past
nine years.
As always, Police Services continue a high priority response to panic and hold up alarms.
ARTICLE II. ALARM SYSTEMS
Sec. 15-60. Performance standards.
(a) All alarm systems shall be afforded a thirty-day adjustment period commencing
with the date of activation in order that the system may be brought to maximum
efficiency. During that period of time, no false alarms shall be charged against the
system. However, emergency response by appropriate public agencies of the city may
be restricted or curtailed if, in the determination of the head of that agency, the number
of false alarms becomes excessive.
(b) After the adjustment ends, the criteria for determining the reliability of an alarm
system shall be its performance. Any alarm system may be deemed unreliable if it
signals more than:
(1) Two (2) false alarms in any thirty-day period;
(2) Four (4) false alarms in any ninety-day period;
(3) Six (6) false alarms in any one-hundred-eighty-day period;
(4) Eight (8) false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty-day period.
YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
# of
Alarms 5009 4799 4532 4178 3374 3233 2782 3005 2750 2505
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Question from Ben Manvel
How does Fort Collins compare to other competing community's lodging rates?
Response from Jim Clark, President & CEO of the Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau
Attached is a list of lodging tax comparisons, albeit it incomplete. The Colorado Association
of Destination Marketing Organizations (of which I am the Chair) is working on a new one
post November 2010 election. There are several communities that have initiatives in place to
raise their lodging taxes to fund additional tourism marketing. We are currently one of the
lowest budgets in the state of Colorado, only above Greeley and Alamosa.
Page 5 of 29
Destination Lodging Tax Comparison Comments
Boulder 2.9% State Tax
.65% County Tax
1.2% RTD Tax
5.5%, Lodging Tax
10.25% Total Tax
Restaurant Tax .15% 100%
(toward tourism) 50% of CVB
budget.
Cheyenne 5.0% City Tax
1.0 % Lodging Tax
6.0% Total Accomodations Tax
Colorado
Springs
2.5% Colorado Springs City Tax
2.9% State Tax
1.0% El Paso County Tax
1.0% Transportation Tax
2.0% Lodging Tax
9.4% Total Room Tax
Broadmoor has a self-imposed
2.25% improvements fee for city
scape, drainage, streets, curbs &
gutters and roundabouts on both
private and public property. Fee
goes to the Broadmoor.
Denver 1.75% Convention Center
3.00% Convention Center
3.25% General Fund
2.75% DMCVB
1.00% RTD
.10% Cultural Facilities
.10% Stadium Tax
2.90% State tax
14.85% Total Room Tax
Estes Park Looking at a 2% Lodging Tax (passed Nov. 09)
Fort Collins 2.9% State Tax
.8% Larimer County Tax
3.0% Ft. Collins City Tax
3.0% Lodging Tax
9.7% Total Accommodations Tax
Grand
Junction
2.75 City Tax
2.0% County Tax
2.9% State Tax
3% Lodging Tax
10.65% Total Room Tax
Greeley 3.46 City Tax
2.9% State Tax
3.0% Lodging Tax
9.36% Total Room Tax
Loveland 3.0% Loveland City Tax
0.8% Larimer County Tax
2.9% State Tax
3.0% Lodging Tax
9.7% Total Room Tax
Page 6 of 29
Pueblo 2.9% State Tax
4.5% Local Taxes
4.3% Lodging Tax
11.7% Total Room Tax
Steamboat
Springs
4.5% Steamboat Springs City Tax
1.0% Routt County Tax
2.9% State Tax
1.0% Lodging Tax
9.4% Total Room Tax
2% Local Marketing District - In place for 1 year.
---
11.4% Total in LMD
This is a tax that was voted on by
the Main Street Limited
electorate.
Ft. Worth,
TX
1.0% City Tax
0.5% T Tax
0.5% Crime District Tax
6.25% Texas State Tax
? Lodging Tax
? Total Room Tax
Salt Lake
City, UT
1.0% Local Tax
0.3% Mass Transit Tax
0.25% Add'l Mass Transit Tax
1.25% County Option Transportat'n
0.1% Cultural Tax
0.25% County Tax
4.65% Utah State Tax
3.0% Tourism Short-Term Lease Tax
12.67% Total Room Tax
Dan - City Legal Services
(970) 879-2060 ext.223
Billings, MT 7.0% Tax
+ $.75 Tourism/Business/Industry District Fee
Sacramento,
CA
12% Total Tax
$.15 Tourism Fee State
$1.50 Tourism Fee City
Mandatory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: High Performing Government
7) Question from Wade Troxell
When will we be completely off the PBX?
Response from Tom Vosburg
With the funding provided in this budget we will completely off the PBX by the end of 2012.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 7 of 29
8) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
How much money would be saved by moving the municipal elections from April to
November?
Response from Wanda Krajicek
Based on what we know now about the costs for the November election, I don’t believe that
any cost savings would be realized. In fact, I’m almost certain it would be significantly more
expensive. We would be paying a proportionate share of a larger, more complicated election
(extra election workers, vote center O&M, early vote center O&M, and extra costs driven by
the onerous provisions of the Uniform Election Code). When the City coordinates an election
with Larimer County, we are required by law to follow the Uniform Election Code, rather than
the Municipal Election Code or the City’s Charter and Code.
Such a change would require Charter amendment(s) and significant Code changes.
Additionally, it is important to factor in that if the petition effort to place Instant Runoff Voting
(IRV) on the April ballot is successful, and IRV is adopted by the voters in April, Larimer
County would face challenges in implementing the statutory provisions relating to conducting
an IRV election on the City’s behalf.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9) Request from Kelly Ohlson
Please redistribute the "Long-term impacts of Larvaciding" memo
Response from John Stokes
Staff cannot find and does not recall a memo regarding the long-term effects of larvaciding
that Councilmember Ohlson requested. He indicated that he thought he had a copy and, if
so, it would be appreciated if he could share it with us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
How much money are we spending on the idling program including staff time?
Response from John Stokes
In 2010 to date, the Natural Resources Department has spent about $2,400 on anti-idling
efforts ($125 on a joint project with CSU to pay for No Idling signs adjacent to CSU at Laurel
and Prospect, $2000 for the “No Idling” component of a larger summertime ozone awareness
campaign, and $250 for 8 hours of staff time to plan and place the ads.)
In November and December this year, we will launch a larger community No Idling
Campaign. We have committed a total of $15,000 for the campaign. The budget includes
education/advertizing ($9,000), signage at schools and around the community ($5,000) and
limited print materials ($1,000). In addition to the General Fund dollars allocated, we
estimate spending 3 weeks of staff time on developing and implementing the new campaign
($4200).
In total, we anticipate spending $21,600 (outreach, materials and staff time) on idling in 2010
as a result of launching a large No Idling campaign this Fall. In recent years, the amount
Page 8 of 29
spent on No Idling is typically $2,000, depending on how much that year’s ozone tips focused
on No Idling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11) Request from Kelly Ohlson
Please send out the white paper regarding the use of corn-based ethanol
Response from Ken Mannon
Please refer to Appendix #2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12) Request from David Roy
Please send out the list of the 52 City buildings including 1) name, 2) location,
3) square footage and 4) the year built
Response from Ken Mannon
Please refer to Appendix #3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13) Request from Ben Manvel
Please break all the programs down that are in the benefits fund including $ and % of the
total fund.
Response from Amy Sharkey
2011 Programs
Cost % of Total Fund
Medical
• Claims
• Carry-over from previous year claims
projection
• Administration (vendor fees)
• Excess Risk Insurance
• Transplant Insurance
$17,729,324 81.7%
Dental
• Claims
• Carry-over from previous year claims
projection
• Administration (vendor fees)
$1,124,850 5.2%
Medical/Day Care Reimbursement Accounts
$935,000 4.3%
Disability
$860,500 4.0%
Page 9 of 29
Life Insurance
$605,000 2.8%
Wellness
$232,936 1.1%
Vision
$150,000 0.7%
Employee Assistance Program
$48,000 0. 2%
Long Term Care
$16,500 0.1%
2012 Programs
Cost % of Total Fund
Medical
• Claims
• Carry-over from previous year claims
projection
• Administration (vendor fees)
• Excess Risk Insurance
• Transplant Insurance
$18,835,594 82.1%
Dental
• Claims
• Carry-over from previous year claims
projection
• Administration (vendor fees)
$1,225,761 5.3%
Medical/Day Care Reimbursement Accounts
$935,000 4.1%
Disability
$881,000 3.8%
Life Insurance
$605,000 2.6%
Wellness
$252,580 1.1%
Vision
$150,000 0.7%
Employee Assistance Program
$48,000 0. 2%
Long Term Care
$16,500 0.1%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14) Question from Ben Manvel
What is the total amount of money that is budgeted for retirement outside of the Benefits
Fund?
Page 10 of 29
Response from Steve Engemoen and Amy Sharkey
The amounts are $6,185,390 for 2011 and $6,321,182 for 2012 broken down as follows:
Fund/Account 2011 2012
Fund: 100 - General Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $2,578,880 $2,640,545
512040 - GERP $261,650 $267,986
Subtotal for Fund 100 $2,840,530 $2,908,531
Fund: 252 - General Improvement District
512030 - Retirement Contributions $632 $367
512040 - GERP $2,178 $1,111
Subtotal for Fund 252 $2,810 $1,478
Fund: 270 - Neighborhood Parkland Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $3,434 $3,503
512040 - GERP $5,044 $5,145
Subtotal for Fund 270 $8,478 $8,648
Fund: 271 - Conservation Trust Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $5,229 $5,333
512040 - GERP $5,044 $5,145
Subtotal for Fund 271 $10,273 $10,478
Fund: 272 - Natural Areas Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $111,296 $113,525
512040 - GERP $18,370 $18,738
Subtotal for Fund 272 $129,666 $132,263
Fund: 273 - Cultural Services Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $64,175 $61,168
512040 - GERP $5,663 $5,776
Subtotal for Fund 273 $69,838 $66,944
Fund: 274 - Recreation Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $95,079 $91,032
512040 - GERP $57,012 $56,795
Subtotal for Fund 274 $152,091 $147,827
Fund: 275 - Cemeteries Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $14,736 $15,030
512040 - GERP $4,688 $4,782
Subtotal for Fund 275 $19,424 $19,812
Fund: 290 - Transit Services Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $160,275 $163,474
512040 - GERP $57,363 $58,515
Subtotal for Fund 290 $217,638 $221,989
Fund: 291 - Street Oversizing Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $6,760 $6,895
512040 - GERP $5,330 $5,437
Subtotal for Fund 291 $12,090 $12,332
Fund: 292 - Transportation Fund
Page 11 of 29
512030 - Retirement Contributions $334,481 $339,408
512040 - GERP $73,005 $74,307
Subtotal for Fund 292 $407,486 $413,715
Fund: 500 - Golf Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $27,169 $27,715
512040 - GERP $31,584 $32,216
Subtotal for Fund 500 $58,753 $59,931
Fund: 501 - Light & Power Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $479,389 $501,153
512040 - GERP $58,899 $60,081
Subtotal for Fund 501 $538,288 $561,234
Fund: 502 - Water Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $196,982 $202,413
512040 - GERP $202,105 $206,149
Subtotal for Fund 502 $399,087 $408,562
Fund: 503 - Wastewater Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $147,364 $151,405
512040 - GERP $199,919 $203,917
Subtotal for Fund 503 $347,283 $355,322
Fund: 504 - Stormwater Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $90,618 $93,338
512040 - GERP $54,473 $55,563
Subtotal for Fund 504 $145,091 $148,901
Fund: 601 - Equipment Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $74,233 $75,843
512040 - GERP $65,359 $66,667
Subtotal for Fund 601 $139,592 $142,510
Fund: 602 - Self Insurance Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $20,356 $20,762
512040 - GERP $4,824 $4,920
Subtotal for Fund 602 $25,180 $25,682
Fund: 603 - Data & Communications Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $172,678 $176,123
512040 - GERP $33,473 $34,143
Subtotal for Fund 603 $206,151 $210,266
Fund: 604 - Benefits Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $26,912 $27,451
512040 - GERP $5,677 $5,790
Subtotal for Fund 604 $32,589 $33,241
Fund: 605 - Utility CS&A Fund
512030 - Retirement Contributions $307,175 $313,323
512040 - GERP $108,568 $110,738
Subtotal for Fund 605 $415,743 $424,061
Fund: 800 - URA O&M Fund
Page 12 of 29
512030 - Retirement Contributions $7,309 $7,455
512040 - GERP $0 $0
Subtotal for Fund 800 $7,309 $7,455
GRAND TOTAL $6,185,390 $6,321,182
2011 2012
GERP $1,260,228 $1,283,921
Retirement Contributions $4,925,162 $5,037,261
GRAND TOTAL $6,185,390 $6,321,182
Data As Of: 10/14/10
This report includes Accepted Offers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
15) Question from Kelly Ohlson
What is the status of the Land Development Tracking System? Is it now able to track the
land development projects from start to finish?
Response from Steve Dush
The short answer is we’re nearly there. Currently, Fort Collins’ land development is tracked
in two separate systems. DMS is used to track all development projects. Accela is used to
track all building permits and inspections. We are in process of merging the two systems by
migrating the DMS system into Accela. When finished, all land development, together with
related process and inspections, will be accessible from one system. This will include project
compliance inspections during development, as well as for a period of time after
development, to ensure project specifics have been, and continue to be, complied with. Staff
anticipates that this migration will be complete by mid-2011. We have however, completed
an interim tracking system for projects that have conditions of approval that exceed the
construction such as the North College Marketplace. This tracking system is internal and
notifies staff of when an inspection for wetlands compliance is needed to ensure that
compliance.
With the Accela migration, customers will be able to view information on-line through Citizen
Access. This is currently being done for building permits, where customers can obtain
information/comments on project specifics/details, people associated with the project
(owners, contractors, etc.), building permit holds/approvals, fees, building inspections and
final approval (Certificates of Occupancy). The same type of information will be available for
planning projects. Please note that pre-migration applications will not have the on-line
tracking feature.
Additionally, one very exciting project that we are working toward is the integration of Accela
with the City’s GIS and Document Management systems. This effort will further automate the
search and retrieval of data related to projects and permits by allowing customers the ability
Page 13 of 29
to pull up our mapping system on-line, select a parcel and have the ability to search on all
related documents, processes and activities associated with the parcel by choosing
appropriate links that show up based on the map selection. The completion of this effort is
dependent upon resources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
16) Request from Kelly Ohlson
Please respond to the cut to the contract position for grant reporting and asset tracking
Response from John Voss
This offer appears in the recommended budget as only a $12K enhancement offer. When
the offer was submitted it reflected the incremental $12K cost to add a .75 FTE Accountant
position above what we have historically been paying for an outside contractor to do fixed
asset and grant accounting. Since then, however, Finance cut that contractor position for
2011-12 to help balance the General Fund budget. Accordingly, to fund a .75 FTE
Accountant position would cost $57K including payroll, taxed and benefits.
Funding this position would ensure the same level of service and quality for fixed asset
accounting and grant compliance/reporting currently provided through non-City personnel.
However, assuming this position will not be funded, it is being transitioned to the existing
Accounting staff. Unfortunately, the Accounting staff does not have the year-round capacity
to absorb all of these duties within existing resources without a reduction in the level of
service to 1) either fixed asset and grant of accounting, 2) other services provided by
Accounting or 3) a combination of both. Thus, not funding this position will deteriorate the
significant improvements and efficiencies made over the last 4 years to standardize fixed
asset and grant accounting practices, and more effectively capture and account for all asset
acquisitions, transfers, donations, trade-ins and disposals. There may possibly be audit
comments from this reduction in service and quality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
17) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
What have we done to streamline efficiencies in citywide marketing and communications?
Response from Kelly DiMartino
Advertising and Marketing Dollars
Advertising and marketing dollars in the City typically fall into these categories:
- Promotions to generate revenue through increased participation (i.e., Lincoln Center, Transfort,
Recreation)
- Marketing and outreach funded by Enterprise operations (Fort Collins Utilities, Golf)
- Campaigns funded through grants or dedicated funds (FC Bikes, Natural Areas, traffic calming)
- General communication and public relations (City News, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services)
Here are the cost breakdowns based on 2009 expenses and/or 2010 budgets:
Department Budget/Expenses
Lincoln Center – season brochures, show promotion $144,000
Utilities Campaigns (Make Efficient Choices, Flood $110,000
Page 14 of 29
Awareness Week, Drinking Water, Public Power Week)
Transfort (proposed 2011/2012 budget eliminates all
marketing expenses except bus schedule promotion)
$88,000
Recreation** $4,200
Natural Areas (maps, posters, program guides) $35,000
Air Quality (radon, ozone, breathe easy campaign) $30,000
Communications Office (City News & bill inserts) $30,000
Traffic – school zone ads, signs and banners (funded by
Traffic Calming Surcharge) -
$22,500
Community Development & Neighborhood Services $22,000
Golf $10,000
**In 2010 Recreation merged the Recreator and Enrich and sold advertising to offset expenses. As a
result, total cost to the City went from $51,000 in 2009 to $4,200 in 2010. The approach also saved
440 hours of staff time and results in 80,000 fewer 50-page publications printed throughout the year.
Specific project related marketing expenses, such as Plan Fort Collins ($12,000 for events, focus
groups, postage) and the College-Harmony Improvement Project ($1,500 for mailings and flyers), are
not included in the totals above.
Staff
In 2009, we reviewed how communication and marketing functions were organized in the City
organization. We learned that there were opportunities to better utilize existing resources, and as a
result, re-organized resources into Service Area/Unit teams. For example, the marketing positions that
previously served only Transfort and Advance Planning, now serve all of PDT. We also centralized
graphic services rather than having a Utilities graphics shop and a Communications and Public
Involvement Graphics shop. As a result of these reorganizations, 1.5 communications positions were
eliminated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome: Environmental Health
18) Question from Kelly Ohlson
What is the plan to get to our goal of 140 gallons per person water usage? What are the
various ways we measure water conservation? How we get to our various goals (residential
vs. commercial)?
Response from Kevin Gertig
Fort Collins Utilities has a goal of reducing water use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
by 2020. The plan to reach this goal is spelled out in the Water Conservation Plan which was
submitted to, and has been approved by, the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The plan
involves numerous measures that are applied to both indoor and outdoor uses as well as
programs for residential and commercial uses. The plan includes such programs and
measures as public education, rebates on indoor fixtures and irrigation technology, xeriscape
design clinics and various regulatory and operational measures. Information regarding each
of the programs is tracked on an ongoing basis. Water use information for different customer
classifications is tabulated in order to monitor changes to water demand patterns. Utilities
Page 15 of 29
staff will continue to produce an annual report on the conservation program that includes a
detailed description of plan implementation as well as the measured impacts on usage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
19) Question from Wade Troxell
Have we done a complete ROI analysis on biosolids/gasification?
Response from Kevin Gertig
The simple answer is "No". However, we do have some additional background for our
current bio-gas program.
For Fort Collins Utilities wastewater solids, 80% of each pound is volatile solids.
Approximately 68% of that material is used to produce methane gas on the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility site. Methane is used to heat 13 of the 16 buildings on site plus four
digestion tanks (digesters).
The remaining volatile material is used as fertilizer at the Meadow Springs Ranch to support
grazing operations. The Utility is paid $100,000.00 per year for grazing rights.
An enhancement offer for BFO was assembled to clean the methane to a level that the Utility
could sell the gas back to xcel Energy Company (See BFO offer 191.1) in the summer
months. This offer was unfunded for the 2011 – 2012 budget cycle.
At this time, the Utility has not evaluated the return on investment for gasification. Staff would
be thrilled to meet with CSU or others who may have thoughts on enhancement of our
current digestion process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 10/11/10
Actual Budget Budget Budget Actual Budget Budget Budget
Facility Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 Facility Description 2009 2010 2011 2012
EPIC Revenue 1,627,588 1,599,200 1,604,561 1,619,267 Mulberry Pool Revenue 285,702 229,640 262,435 266,956
Expense 1,768,856 1,994,180 1,726,471 1,718,316 Expense 432,832 392,226 254,714 260,530
% Recovery 92% 80% 93% 94% % Recovery 66% 59% 103% 102%
Other Department Costs: Other Department Costs:
Grounds Maintenance 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Grounds Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Facility Maint 406,205 406,205 406,205 406,205 * Facility Maint 87,218 87,218 103,054 106,090
Utilities 332,074 416,435 416,040 454,545 Utilities 77,954 109,050 84,774 92,544
Total Other Costs 783,279 867,640 867,245 905,750 Total Other Costs 190,172 221,268 212,828 223,634
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 64% 56% 62% 62% % Recovery Incl Other Costs: 46% 37% 56% 55%
Senior Center Revenue 715,912 712,352 735,457 768,397 City Park Pool Revenue 328,717 347,629 300,296 307,943
Expense 1,385,271 1,462,398 1,523,213 1,531,162 Expense 206,886 162,741 262,816 269,213
% Recovery 52% 49% 48% 50% % Recovery 159% 214% 114% 114%
Other Department Costs: Other Department Costs:
Grounds Maintenance 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Grounds Maintenance 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Facility Maint 176,591 176,591 176,591 176,591 Facility Maint 54,292 54,292 54,292 54,292
Utilities 100,068 122,430 114,993 125,383 Utilities 37,068 57,815 38,875 42,300
Total Other Costs 341,659 364,021 356,584 366,974 Total Other Costs 92,360 113,107 94,167 97,592
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 41% 39% 39% 40% % Recovery Incl Other Costs: 110% 126% 84% 84%
NACC Revenue 468,973 429,230 469,162 472,906 The Farm Revenue 200,813 209,561 210,856 219,788
Expense 1,070,561 1,111,194 1,107,977 1,134,311 Expense 265,482 268,562 265,550 272,361
% Recovery 44% 39% 42% 42% % Recovery 76% 78% 79% 81%
Other Department Costs: Other Department Costs:
Grounds Maintenance 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Grounds Maintenance 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Facility Maint 131,640 131,640 131,640 131,640 Facility Maint 16,179 16,179 16,179 16,179
Utilities 62,038 70,765 71,289 77,359 Utilities 7,601 9,210 8,430 9,320
Total Other Costs 233,678 242,405 242,929 248,999 Total Other Costs 33,780 35,389 34,609 35,499
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 36% 32% 35% 34% % Recovery Incl Other Costs: 67% 69% 70% 71%
Youth Activity Center Other Department Costs:
Revenue 162,784 138,771 151,347 151,347 Grounds Maintenance includes turf care, watering and irrigation system maintenance,
Expense 97,532 108,821 113,884 113,265 shrub and flower bed care, and snow removal of sidewalks and parking lots.
% Recovery 167% 128% 133% 134% Expense is based on a four year average of actual costs.
Other Department Costs: Facility Maintenance includes custodial services and general maintenance and repair
Grounds Maintenance n/a n/a n/a n/a based on a four year average.
Facility Maint 13,335 13,335 13,335 13,335 * Mulberry Pool facility maintenance costs are updated based on Offers 39.6
Utilities 25,680 23,540 27,794 30,179 and 39.8 Op Sevices recommended budget.
Total Other Costs 39,015 36,875 41,129 43,514 Utilities include electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, and storm drainage.
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 119% 95% 98% 97% NACC revenue/expense numbers include 30% of Child Development BU's and 15% from Sports
YAC revenue/expense numbers reflect a 30% adjustment applied to the NACC facility
for programming held at that facility.
2009 Total Visitations = 22,445; Net income per visit = $1.17
2009 visitation numbers are as reported in the Performance Measures in each Offer.
Net cost/income for each facility includes all associated costs.
COST RECOVERY OF RECREATION FACILITIES
Including All Associated Costs
2011 - 2012 BFO
2009 Total Visitations = 353,161; Net cost per visit = $2.62 2009 Total Visitations = 117,033; Net cost per visit = $2.88
2009 Total Visitations = 337,325; Net cost per visit = $3.00 2009 Total Visitations = 83,722; Net income per visit = $0.35
2009 Total Visitations = 108,900; Net cost per visit = $7.67 2009 Total Visitations = 61,166; Net cost per visit = $1.61
Actual Budget Budget Budget
Facility Description 2009 2010 2011 2012
The Gardens Revenue 71,672 111,375 85,000 97,000
Expense 364,757 386,338 400,399 416,508
% Recovery 20% 29% 21% 23%
Other Department Costs:
Grounds Maintenance 0 0 0 0
Facility Maint 5,497 12,522 12,826 13,351
Utilities 13,900 14,257 15,127
Total Other Costs 5,497 26,422 27,083 28,478
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 19% 27% 20% 22%
The Museum Revenue 58,974 266,933 251,000 534,500
Expense* 858,151 975,359 952,913 1,121,553
% Recovery 7% 27% 26% 48%
Other Department Costs:
Grounds Maintenance 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Facility Maint 34,377 48,927 47,630 49,100
Utilities 18,248 20,500 20,520 122,000
Total Other Costs 72,625 89,427 88,150 191,100
% Recovery Incl Other Costs: 6% 25% 24% 41%
Museum * Approximately 20% of the Museum's budget is dedicated to preserving and maintaining
the 40,000 object historic artifact collection and archival materials.
This core service of the Museum is not driven by attendance.
**includes walk in at 36,304 and archive online/phone service at 30,417
2011 - 2012 BFO
2009 Total Visitations = 66,721** Net cost per visit = $13.95
2009 Total Visitations = 36,114; Net cost per visit = $8.27
COST RECOVERY OF THE GARDENS AT SPRING CREEK & THE MUSEUM
Including All Associated Costs
Page 16 of 29
APPENDIX #2:
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
FROM: John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
THROUGH: Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager
Marty Heffernan, CPRE Director
CC: Tracy Ochsner, Assistant Operations Services Director
Lucinda Smith, Sr. Environmental Planner
DATE: July 13, 2010
SUBJECT: Staff White Paper on City Ethanol Use
Attached please find a staff white paper on corn ethanol. The paper summarizes the recent literature
regarding the impacts of corn-based ethanol fuel. It concludes that the City’s use of E85 (15%
gasoline, 85% ethanol) is reasonable in the near term to reduce City fleet greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce dependence on foreign fuel.
The use of E85 is considered reasonable as a transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are
locally available. To exit from the use of corn-based ethanol, the City will annually evaluate whether
other clean fuels choices have become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that
cellulosic ethanol may be locally available by the middle of this decade.
In response to your question about the impact of terminating E85 use now, City fleet greenhouse gas
emissions would increase by 265 tons and the City would consume over 20,000 more gallons of
petroleum fuel, based on 2009 usage levels. In addition, the City would probably have to repay the
State of Colorado Governor’s Energy Office about $30,000 of grant funding that was used for ethanol
fueling infrastructure.
The paper does not evaluate the environmental and national security risks associated with the use of
gasoline.
The paper was prepared by Lucinda Smith in the Natural Resources Department, with input and review
by Operations Services. Please let us know if you have any questions or need more information.
Page 17 of 29
Corn Ethanol White Paper
Synopsis
Evaluating the pros and cons of corn ethanol is a very complicated issue. Estimates of the net benefits
or risks of corn ethanol are affected by assumptions about future crop productivity and production
processes and there are contradictory conclusions in the literature.
The City of Fort Collins uses ethanol (E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as part of a
portfolio of approaches to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its fleet. In 2009, ethanol
comprised 3.8% of total City fuel use. The City now has about 100 ethanol-capable vehicles and four
City fueling stations that have been upgraded to include E85. There was no added cost for the City to
purchase the flex fuel ethanol-capable vehicles. The ethanol provided at the City’s ethanol fueling
stations is produced locally in Windsor, thereby reducing some of the negative impacts of corn ethanol
in general, such as long distance transportation. Many studies show ethanol produces fewer
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to gasoline. While compressed natural gas (CNG) offers
even greater tailpipe GHG benefits, there are very limited CNG vehicle options for the light duty fleet,
and no CNG vehicles suited for police vehicle applications. E85 also reduces ground level ozone
precursors compared to gasoline.
Corn ethanol provides a near-term way for the City to reduce its fleet GHG emissions, and its use is
considered reasonable as a transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are locally available. To
exit from the use of corn-based ethanol, the City will annually evaluate whether other clean fuels
choices have become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that cellulosic ethanol may be
locally available by the middle of this decade.
If the City were to completely stop using ethanol until cellulosic ethanol becomes available, GHG
emissions would increase by 265 tons, and the City would consume over 20,000 more gallons of
petroleum fuel, based on 2009 usage levels. In addition, the City would probably have to repay the
State of Colorado Governor’s Energy Office about $30,000 of grant funding that was used for ethanol
fueling infrastructure.
Introduction
The City of Fort Collins uses ethanol (E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as one of
several alternative fuels in its municipal fleet, for the purpose of reducing tailpipe and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and decreasing our reliance on foreign fuel. Currently, only ethanol made from corn
is widely available in the U.S. There has been much debate in recent years about the net value of corn
ethanol as a replacement for fossil transportation fuel. Issues include the net energy balance, net
greenhouse gas emissions, impact on food supply and prices, feasibility of meeting future
transportation fuel needs, impact on national security, and its role in transitioning away from carbon
intensive fuels. Research studies show greatly varying results for energy balance and GHG emissions.
The diversity of these findings is, in part, attributable to differing methodologies, including widely
ranging assumptions about future conditions of crop production, which inputs and outputs (such as
unfermented distillers grain by-product) should be considered, what condition the crops are planted in
(e.g., fertile or poor soil), and over what time period the impacts should be calculated. This white
paper takes a brief look at the most current perspectives on these issues.
Definitions
Corn ethanol, as defined in Wikipedia, is ethanol produced from corn through industrial fermentation,
chemical processing and distillation. It is primarily used in the U.S. as an alternative to gasoline. Corn
ethanol is the most common type of ethanol in the U.S., but is considered less efficient than other types
Page 18 of 29
of ethanol (sugar cane, etc.) because only the grain is used and many petroleum-based products such as
fertilizer and pesticides are used in its production.
i
Sugar ethanol is ethanol produced from sugar-based crops including sugar cane and sugar beets. Brazil
is the second largest ethanol producer in the world, behind the U.S., and the largest producer of ethanol
made from sugar cane. By promoting sugar-based ethanol and increasing domestic oil production,
Brazil eliminated its dependence on foreign oil by 2006. There are no sugar ethanol plants in the U.S.
Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible part of plants.
Energy Balance
A major issue regarding corn ethanol is its energy balance. Energy balance compares the total amount
of energy put into the process of making ethanol compared to the energy released by burning the fuel.
A positive energy balance means more energy is created by burning the fuel than was used to make it.
For the sake of clarity, this will be referred to in this paper as a favorable energy balance.
A number of studies show that the energy balance of corn ethanol is positive and therefore favorable
(i.e., it produces more energy when burned than it takes to make it). In 2005, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture reported an energy balance of 1.24 for corn ethanol (1.24 units of energy produced for
every 1 unit to create the fuel).
ii
A 2006 a study from the University of Minnesota also found that
ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, hence a positive and
favorable energy balance of 1.25.
iii
In 2007, a National Geographic article reported a favorable energy
balance of 1.3 for corn ethanol.
iv
However, there are also studies claiming a negative energy balance for corn ethanol. Most notable is
the 2005 study by David Pimentel from Cornell University and Tad W. Patzek at UC Berkeley.
v
Their
study found that corn ethanol production requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the energy
produced when the fuel is combusted. This study considers the energy required to produce and repair
farm machinery and ethanol processing equipment. The study also states that it costs substantially
more to produce ethanol than it is worth on the market. The study also notes other major
environmental impacts including the fact that corn production uses more herbicides and pesticides than
any other crop produced, and results in significant water use and pollution.
Clearly, energy balance study results are affected by which inputs are considered. There is still debate
on whether to include inputs such as energy required to feed the people growing the corn, the energy
needed to maintain the farm equipment (e.g., for fencing material, etc.) and the energy embodied in
farm equipment. There is also no consensus on what value to give the corn by-product such as the
stalk, commonly known as the ‘coproduct’. Some studies leave it on the field to protect the soil from
erosion and to add organic matter, while others burn the coproduct to power ethanol plants but fail to
address the resulting soil erosion (which would require energy in the form of fertilizer to replace).
vi
Some studies use the coproduct as feed for livestock.
In 2006, a study reported in Science magazine looked at six ethanol energy balance studies. After
normalizing for assumptions and input/output boundaries, this study concluded that ethanol produced
today (2006) is less fossil fuel-intensive than gasoline, although it did not report on a net energy
balance for corn ethanol.
vii
Figure 1 below from a National Renewable Energy Lab presentation plots
a number of ethanol energy balance studies; the majority show a positive (favorable) energy balance.
viii
Figure 1. Ethanol Energy Balance Study Results
Page 19 of 29
Despite critics like Pimentel and Patzek, a 2008 article in the Grist assesses that “majority opinion within
academia and industry is that ethanol and biodiesel do result in net energy gains. Most skeptics concede that if
the balance isn't positive now, it will be soon”.ix
It is also useful to consider the energy balance of gasoline production. Argonne National Lab reports a
negative (unfavorable) energy balance of 1.23 for gasoline production.
x
,
xi
This means that for every
BTU of gasoline burned, it took 1.23 BTU’s to create the fuel (for extraction, processing and
transportation). There are significant national security costs associated with the use of traditional
petroleum fuel as well.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Another criteria for evaluating corn ethanol is greenhouse gas emissions. EPA defines life cycle GHG
emissions as the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions (including direct emissions and significant
indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes), including all stages of fuel and feedstock
production and distribution and end use by the consumer.
xii
Whereas the energy balance looks
primarily at fossil fuel energy inputs and outputs, life cycle GHG emissions also include impacts to
carbon sequestration in soil and plants as a result of changing agricultural practices.
A number of studies show that corn ethanol produces fewer GHG emissions than gasoline fuel. For
example, research from Argonne National Lab has shown that corn-based E85 reduces greenhouse gas
emissions 18-29% compared to gasoline.
xiii
,
xiv
The U.S. Department of Energy’s position is that today,
on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced from corn results in about a 20% reduction in GHG emissions
relative to gasoline.xv
Indirect Land Use Impact on GHG Emissions
Page 20 of 29
When total life cycle emissions are considered, including indirect carbon dioxide emissions caused by
clearing land (thus removing plants that trap CO2 and releasing carbon from the soil), the GHG picture
for corn ethanol may change. Two studies published in Science magazine in 2008 ("Land Clearing
and the Biofuel Carbon Debt" and "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases
through Emissions from Land Use Change"), indicate that land use changes associated with production
of biofuels leads to increased net carbon emissions.
In “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt", Fargione and his colleagues examined the overall CO2
released when land use changes occur. Converting the grasslands of the U.S. to grow corn results in excess
greenhouse gas emissions of 134 metric tons of CO2 per hectare, creating a carbon debt that would take 93 years
to repay by replacing gasoline with corn-based ethanol.xvi
In “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use
Change”, Searchinger finds that ethanol demand in the U.S. has caused some farmers to plant more corn and
less soy. This has driven up soy prices, causing farmers in Brazil to clear more Amazon rainforest land to plant
valuable soy. Because a soy field contains far less carbon than a rainforest, the greenhouse gas benefit of the
original ethanol is wiped out. His study concluded that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent
savings in GHG emissions, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases
for 167 years.xvii
These two studies led to the conclusion in a February 2008 Scientific American article that biofuels are
just plain “bad” for the land.
xviii
The two studies referenced above by Fargione and Searchinger are contested by the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). U.S. DOE criticizes the assumptions used by the authors as outdated and/or
incorrect in a paper documenting why they find the assumptions erroneous.
xix
Key among the concerns
is the assumption by Searchinger that U.S. corn ethanol production will grow to 30 billion gallons,
while in fact corn ethanol production is capped at 15 billion gallons by the current Renewable Fuels
Standard.
A number of studies suggest that some of the negative impacts of ethanol production could be mitigated in the
future through improved practices. For example, a more recent study that evaluated the GHG emissions from
biofuels concluded that a global greenhouse gas emissions policy that protects forests and encourages best
practices for nitrogen fertilizer use could dramatically reduce emissions associated with biofuels production.xx
Figure 2 below prepared by Argonne National Lab summarizes the range of findings on GHG emissions benefits
of ethanol, when compared to gasoline, with the majority of studies showing a favorable GHG impact for
ethanol.x
Page 21 of 29
Figure 2. Ethanol GHG Emissions Comparisons
Impact on Food Production and Prices
Aside from the greenhouse gas emission impacts, there can be impacts on food production and prices
as a result of increasing biofuels, especially food crop-based biofuels. A team of researchers from the
University of Kassel in Germany found that 90 percent of Brazil's sugarcane expansion in the last five
years displaced cattle rangeland, forcing ranchers to push into the forest. This team concluded Brazil's
plan to expand biofuel cropland over the next decade will push displaced rangeland into more than
47,000 square miles of forest and another 17,760 square miles of other native habitat.
xxi
A recent United Nations report concludes that although the potential benefits are large, the biofuels
boom could reduce food security and drive up food prices.
xxii
Lester Brown makes a similar assertion
in a June 2010 article. When oil prices are low, there is less demand for alternative fuels, but as oil
prices rise and biofuels become relatively cheaper, the demand for biofuels rise. Brown reports the
amount of grain used in U.S. ethanol distilleries jumped from 54 million tons in 2006 to 95 million
tons in 2008. This 41-million ton jump represented a doubling in the annual growth in world demand
for grain, helping to triple world prices for wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans from mid-2006 to mid-
2008. A World Bank analyst attributes 70 percent of the food price rise to this diversion of food to
produce fuel for cars. Brown goes on to report that food prices have subsided somewhat as a result of
the global economic downturn, but they are still well above historical levels.
xxiii
Page 22 of 29
U.S. production of ethanol reached 10.75 billion gallons in 2009.
xxiv
The U.S. EPA has estimated that
current sustainable production of corn for fuel in the U.S. is limited to about 15 billion gallons of
ethanol per year and hence the cap on corn ethanol production at 15 billion gallons under the
Renewable Fuels Standard.
viii
The Colorado Renewable Energy Society estimated that ethanol
production in 2001 used only about 7% of the U.S. corn crop, although U.S. ethanol production has
grown significantly since 2001.
xxv
The National Renewable Energy Lab reports that in 2007/2008,
25% of the U.S. corn crop was used to produce ethanol, and that percentage was expected to rise to
33% by 2017/2018.
viii
Air Pollution Impacts
Ethanol is known for reducing direct tailpipe emissions of particulates and carbon monoxide. Ethanol
has been widely distributed in the U.S. in “oxy-fuels” programs as an additive (up to 10%) in gasoline
to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.
The Colorado Governor’s Energy Office provides the following statement about the tailpipe benefits of
ethanol
x
:
Some pollutants in tailpipe emissions are reduced significantly, others are increased. Compared to gasoline in Tier 2
(passenger type) vehicles, ethanol produced the following emissions:
• 55% to 70% less benzene, 1,3-butadiene, & PM2.5 when tested at 72°F
• 19% less benzene and 69% less PM2.5 when tested at 20°F
• 2 to 3 times more NonMethaneHydrocarbons when tested at 20°F
• 50 to 120 times more acetaldehyde when tested at both 20°F and 72°F
• 2 to 4 times more formaldehyde when tested at both 20°F and 72°F
Generally ethanol reduces the direct toxic emissions of xylene and touluene (aromatics) and increases
the emissions of aldehydes, which have more likelihood to oxidize out in the atmosphere and
disappear. The E10 mixture, used year round in Colorado, does increase the fuel volatility, which
contributes to ground level ozone formation. (It is therefore possible that removal of the 10% ethanol
additive to gasoline will be discussed as a possible strategy to reduce ozone in Colorado’s upcoming
ozone planning process.) However, counter-intuitively, adding more ethanol to gasoline does not
increase fuel volatility. E85 is much less volatile than E10, and reduces ozone precursor emissions
compared to gasoline. A small study conduced by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment confirms this. CDPHE will conduct a larger study during the summer of 2010 to
measure the emissions differences of different ethanol fuel mixtures.
There are contradicting findings in the literature, however. A study by atmospheric scientists at
Stanford University found that the use of E85 could boost levels of toxic ozone gas in urban areas.
The modeling analysis projected that if E85 was the primary biofuel in 2020, its use would increase the
risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los Angeles.
xxvi
This study, however, is based
only on modeling and not on actual emissions data.
Another study estimated that for each billion gallons of ethanol fuel produced and combusted in the
U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline and up to an
estimated $952 million for corn ethanol, depending on the heat sources used at the biorefinery. This
same study found that the health care costs associated with cellulosic ethanol could range from $123–
208 million, depending on feedstock.
xxvii
Water Impacts
In 2008 a National Research Council (NRC) committee was convened to look at how shifts in the
nation's agriculture to include more energy crops, and potentially more crops overall, could affect
Page 23 of 29
water management and long-term sustainability of biofuel production. In terms of water quantity, the
committee found that agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops into regions with
little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase
pressure on water resources in many parts of the United States.
xxviii
The NRC committee also concluded that quality of groundwater, rivers, and coastal and offshore
waters could be impacted by increased fertilizer and pesticide use for biofuels. High levels of nitrogen
in stream flows are a major cause of low-oxygen or "hypoxic" regions, commonly known as "dead
zones," which are lethal for most living creatures and cover broad areas of the Gulf of Mexico,
Chesapeake Bay, and other regions. However, the report also notes that there are a number of
agricultural practices and technologies that could be employed to reduce nutrient pollution.
xxviii
In
addition, there can be water quality impacts from processing ethanol, including elevated emissions of
phosphorus and residual chlorine into waterways.
xxix
Environmental Defense, a U.S. based non-profit environmental advocacy group, studied the potential
water supply impacts of ethanol production along the Ogallala Aquifer. The study found that while the
water demands for ethanol production are not substantially higher than for other industrial uses, a rapid
growth in ethanol plants will increase water demands on the aquifer both from production of ethanol
and increased corn production. Their 2007 report concludes by suggesting that thoughtful fuel and
natural resource policies can mitigate the negative implications of biofuels development. Policy
options include paring low carbon fuels standards with strong incentives for water and wildlife
conservation. For example, Congress could eliminate any subsidies for crops planted in formerly
untilled grasslands. Regionally, decision-makers could guide ethanol plants to more sustainable
locations by making approval contingent on water impact analyses.
xxx
U.S. Ethanol Policy
The stated objectives behind national biofuels policies are to improve energy security and mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act. This
Act includes ethanol as an important element of the energy solution. It sets a goal to increase annual
renewable fuels production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Under this goal, ethanol produced from corn
is capped at 15 billion gallons by 2022.
xxxi
There is disagreement regarding the amount of crop land
needed to produce this much corn ethanol. Some critics say that this amount of ethanol will require the
entire corn crop in the US.
xxxii
A researcher at the University of Minnesota claims that if every corn
kernel grown today in the U.S. were converted to ethanol, it would offset only 12 percent of our
gasoline use.
iii
This act also modifies the “Renewable Fuels Standard” (RFS) program. The guidance in the RFS
program states that to meet the nation's renewable standard, a fuel's "life cycle" carbon emissions must
be at least 20 percent below that of gasoline or diesel in 2005.
xii
In February 2010, EPA and the Obama administration approved corn ethanol as a low-carbon
renewable fuel that will meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold compared to the 2005
gasoline baseline.
xxi
EPA’s underlying analysis is based on assumptions of significantly increased crop
yields linked to production efficiencies that are likely to occur by 2022. EPA’s analysis also
considered the “Indirect Land Use Impacts (ILUI) that would occur in 160 other countries.
It is interesting to note that the finding of corn ethanol as a renewable fuel is in contradiction to
California's determination in 2009 that the carbon footprint of corn ethanol was too big to help the state
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The California assessment looked at current emissions associated
with corn-based ethanol and concluded they were too great to include it as a strategy.xxxiii
Critics of ethanol are also concerned about the cost of subsidies. Ethanol subsidies began in 1979.
Today ethanol is being subsidized at a rate of 51¢ per gallon, which costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in
Page 24 of 29
2008.
xviii
Critics also claim that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large
ethanol-producing corporations.
vi
Cellulosic Ethanol
Production of ethanol from cellulose may present a brighter picture in terms of reduced environmental
impacts and food crop displacement. Cellulose is contained in the tough chains of sugar molecules
that make up plant cell walls. Breaking the cellulose that makes up the cell walls of non-food crop
materials such as stalks, leaves, sawdust, and perennial grasses (e.g. switch grass and buffalo grass)
could result in biofuels that do not compete with food crops.
In its bioenergy policy, EPA anticipates a ramp-up of commercial production of cellulosic ethanol,
starting with just a few plants in 2010, increasing to one billion gallons in 2013, 4.25 billion gallons by
2016 and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. EPA’s strategy also calls for further
investigation into more sustainable sources of cellulosic material, even including forest residues or
organic waste in municipal solid waste.
xxxiv
General Conclusion
Evaluating the pros and cons of corn ethanol is a very complicated issue. Estimates of the net benefits
or risks of corn ethanol are affected by assumptions about future crop productivity and production
processes and there are contradictory conclusions in the literature. Some studies indicate that corn
ethanol does not have a positive energy balance, causes elevated life cycle greenhouse gas emissions,
harms water quantity and quality, and competes with food crops, while other studies indicate positive
benefits. Critics argue that the massive U.S. subsidies of corn ethanol only benefit large
agribusinesses, do not benefit small farmers, and are very costly to the American taxpayer. These
concerns are likely to render corn ethanol a poor long-term solution as a transportation fuel. However,
as we approach conditions of peak oil when the demand for fuel exceeds the supply capacity, new
sustainable alternatives are desperately needed. Promise may well lie in other forms of ethanol, such
as cellulosic ethanol, especially if national and global policies are put in place to protect forest lands
and support farming best practices that minimize nitrogen fertilizer use.
"We can create ethanol in an incredibly dumb way," says Nathanael Greene, a senior
researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But there are many pathways that get
us a future full of wildlife, soil carbon, and across-the-board benefits." The key, Greene and
others say, is to figure out how to make fuel from plant material other than food: cornstalks,
prairie grasses, fast-growing trees, or even algae. That approach, combined with more efficient
vehicles and communities, says Greene, "could eliminate our demand for gasoline by 2050."
iv
City of Fort Collins Use of Corn Ethanol
The City of Fort Collins has an internal administrative goal to reduce GHG emissions from municipal
operations 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. To support achievement of that goal, an objective has
been set to reduce traditional fuel use by the City’s vehicle fleet by 20% by 2020. According to a
number of references above, the GHG emissions associated with corn ethanol are lower than those
associated with gasoline. Hence, the City began using E85 in 2007, consuming 2,332 gallons. In
2008, City use rose to 28,330 gallons. In 2009, the City used 28,240 gallons of E85, which represents
3.8% of the total City fuel used in 2009. The City has several vehicles that can burn E85 or gasoline.
There are currently seven ethanol fueling stations in Fort Collins including the Poudre Valley Fuel Co-
op on East Mulberry, Western Convenience on West Drake Road, Western Convenience on Jefferson
St., the main City Fleet Shop on Wood Street, Fossil Creek Park, Spring Canyon Park and Police
Services (almost completed). Currently, a gallon of ethanol costs about $2.20 in Fort Collins and a
gallon of gasoline costs about $2.50.
Page 25 of 29
The City of Fort Collins’ E85 fuel is provided by the Windsor ethanol plant. Most of the corn used in the
Windsor plant is produced locally. The plant buys as much local corn as possible during the harvest season
from Weld County and beyond. As a result, the life cycle environmental impacts from this corn ethanol are
probably significantly less than for ethanol produced elsewhere because it is not resulting in deforestation or
transported long distances before use. There may be regional economic benefits from production of ethanol in
Windsor as well. The Renewable Fuels Association claims that ethanol production today helps support nearly
400,000 jobs across the entire economy and that the jobs supported by ethanol production in 2009 added $16
billion in increased household income across the nation.xxxv
Staff Recommendations Regarding the Use of Corn Ethanol in City Fleet
Staff recommends continuing the City’s use of E85 fuel as part of a near-term portfolio of approaches
to reduce GHG emissions from the City’s vehicle fleet and reduce dependence on foreign fuel. Corn-
based E85 is reasonable as a transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are available locally.
The City has already acquired about 100 ethanol capable vehicles and upgraded four City fueling
stations to include E85, and the ethanol used by City fleets is produced locally. If the City were to
completely stop using ethanol until cellulosic ethanol becomes available, GHG emissions would
increase by 265 tons and we would use over 20,000 more gallons of petroleum fuel, based on 2009
usage levels.
If predictions hold true, this decade will see improved methods of producing ethanol with more ethanol
coming from cellulosic feedstocks, so the net environmental impacts are likely to improve.
Accordingly, the City’s Legislative Policy Agenda calls for the City to “Support programs and policies
that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology; and encourage or promote alternative fuels
such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen and compressed natural gas.”
In addition to use of ethanol fuel, the City will continue pursuing other strategies to reduce the impacts
from its vehicle fleet including careful consideration of each vehicle purchase decision to find the
optimal balance of life cycle costs, air pollution impacts and net greenhouse gas emissions while using
the smallest vehicle application practical to meet the user needs and through “demand management”
approaches such as efforts to reduce the amount of driving and unnecessary idling.
In summary, staff believes it is reasonable for the City to continue using E85 vehicles and fuels until
other alternative fuels and vehicles become locally viable. To exit from the use of corn-based ethanol,
the City will annually evaluate whether new CNG vehicle options or other clean fuel choices have
become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that cellulosic ethanol may be locally
available by the middle of this decade.
References
i
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol [Retrieved April 2010]
ii
Shapouri H, Duffield JA, and Graboski MS, Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. Agricultural
Economics Report No. (AER721.)July 1995. [Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
April 2010]
iii
Hill J., Nelson E., Tilman D., et. al., (July 25 2006). "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and
benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (30): 11206–
Page 26 of 29
10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604600103. PMID 16837571 [Abstract retreived from
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.abstract April 2010]
iv Bourne JK, Green Dreams: Making fuel from crops could be good for the planet—after a breakthrough or
two. National Geographic, October 2007. [Retrieved from
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text April 2010.]
v
Pimentel D, Patzek T, Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass and Wood: Biodiesel Production using
Soybeans and Sunflower. Natural Resources Research, March 2005. Vol. 14:1, 65-76.
vi
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance[Retrieved April 2010]
vii
Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, et. Al., Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental
Goals. Science. January 2006. Vol 311.
viii
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Ethanol Production, Distribution and Use”. Presentation
to Rocky Mountain Fleet Managers Association, May 14, 2008. Source:
http://rechargecolorado.com/images/uploads/pdfs/FoodFuelPresentation.pdf [Retrieved June 2010]
ix
Olmstead J., A Look at the Impacts of Biofuels Production in the U.S. and the World. Grsit Web Site. Source:
http://www.grist.org/article/olmstead/P2 [Retrieved June 2010]
x Source: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/index.php?/renewable/ethanol [Retrieved April 2010]
xi
Wang M., Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Results of Ethanol Fuel. Presentation by
Michael Wang, Argonne National Lab, September 2005. Source:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf [Retrieved April 2010]
xii EPA. EPA Life Cycle Analysis of GHG Emissions for Renewable Fuels. EPA-420-F-10-006. February
2010. Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10006.pdf
xiii
Wang M, Saricks C, Santini D. "Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions" Argonne National Laboratory. [Source:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/58.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-07]
xiv
Wang M. "Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Effects of Fuel Ethanol" [Source:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/271.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-07]
xv
U.S. Department of Energy. Source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html
[Retrieved June 2010]
xvi Fargione J., et. al. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science. 2008, Vol. 319, pg 1235. [Source:
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/files/land_clearing_and_the_biofuel_carbon_debt.pdf Retrieved
April 2010.]
xvii Searchinger T, et. al., Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions
from Land Use Change. Science. 2008, Vol. 319, pg 1238. [Source
:http://www.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf/SearchingeretalScience08.pdf Retrieved April 2010.]
Page 27 of 29
xviii
Biello D. Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change, Scientific
American February 7, 2008. Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-
for-people-and-climate Retrieved April 2010.]
xix
U.S. Department of Energy. New Studies Portray Unbalanced Perspectives on Biofuels, [Source:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/obp_science_response_web.pdf Retrieved April 2010.]
xx Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, et. al., Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? Science.
October 2009. Vol. 326, pg. 1397. Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1180251 Retrieved
April 2010]
xxi Fischer D. Feds conclude corn-based biofuels help reduce emissions, in contrast to California regulators, who
said they don't. Who's right? Oddly enough, both may be” Daily Climate. February 12, 2010. [Source:
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/02/ethanols-contrasting-carbon-footprints Retrieved April
2010.]
xxii
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food Production and
Agriculture 2008: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities. Rome, 2008. [Source:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm Retrieved April 2010.]
xxiii
Brown L., Article adapted from Chapter 2, “Population Pressure: Land and Water,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan
B 4.0: Mobilization to Save Civilization. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 2009. [Retrieved from
http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/06/10/cars-and-people-compete-for-grain/ June 2010]
xxiv
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel [Retrieved June 2010]
xxv Source: http://www.cres-energy.org/techbasics/biomass_div1.html [Retrieved June 2010]
xxvi Davidson K., Study Warns of Health Risk from Ethanol. Chronicle Science Writer, April 18, 2007. [Source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN601.DTL#ixzz0kS1TSluU
Retrieved April 2010.]
xxvii
Hill J, Polasky S, Nelson E., Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and
gasoline. (Sustainability Science; Author abstract)." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States 106.6 (Feb 10, 2009): 2077(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Bentley Upper
School Library (Baisl) October 6, 2009.
xxviii
Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. Water Implications
of Biofuels Production in the United States. National Research Council. 2008. [Source:
http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/report-increase-in-first-generation.html Retrieved April
2010.]
xxix
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. Ethanol Benchmarking and Best Practices: The
Production Process and Potential for Improvement. March 2008. (Source:
http://www.mntap.umn.edu/MnTAP%20Ethanol%20Report.pdf) Retrieved April 2010.]
xxx
Environmental Defense. Potential Impacts of Biofuels Expansion on Natural Resources: A Case Study of the
Ogallala Aquifer Region. 2007. Source:
http://www.edf.org/documents/7011_Potential%20Impacts%20of%20Biofuels%20Expansion.pdf [Retrieved
June 2010]
xxxi
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Ethanol Production, Distribution and Use. Presentation to
Rocky Mountain Fleet Managers Association, May 14, 2008. [Source:
Page 28 of 29
http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/BiofuelsScienceResponse.pdf Retrieved April
2010.]
xxxii Graham S., Obama's Energy Policy will Increase Dependence on Foreign Oil. American thinker, June 24,
1010. [Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html Retrieved
April 2010.]
xxxiii Fischer D., Is Ethanol from Corn Bad for the Climate? Scientific America. February 2010. [Source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ethanol-corn-climate Retrieved April 2010.]
xxxiv
U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Changes to Renewable Fuels Policy. EPA-420-D-
09-001, May 2009. Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420d09001.pdf
xxxv Source: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/member/talking-points [Contact the City of Fort Collins for this
reference, as this link is restricted to members only]
Page 29 of 29
APPENDIX #3 (City Buildings):
G.F. MAINT & REPAIR BUDGETED BLDGS ADDRESS SQ. FT. YR BUILT
110 N. HOWES 110 N. HOWES 880 1963
112-114 N. HOWES 112-114 N. HOWES 1,362 1963
200 W. MOUNTAIN (East) 200 W. MOUNTAIN 6,500 1966
200 W. MOUNTAIN (West) 200 W. MOUNTAIN 5,040 1966
208 N. HOWES 208 N. HOWES 3,968 1960
212 / 218 W. MTN 212 W. MTN 7,700 1924
212 LAPORTE 212 LaPORTE 6,384 1976
214 N. HOWES OFFICE BLDG 214 N. HOWES 6,900 1963
215 N MASON OFFICE BLDG 215 N. MASON 71,500 2001
222-226 W. MTN 222-226 W. MTN 1,370 1966
281 N. COLLEGE OFFICE BLDG 281 N. COLLEGE 37,602 1901
300 N. HOWES 300 N. HOWES 6,068 1960
321 MAPLE OFFICE BLDG 321 MAPLE 1,954 1978
812 N SHIELDS 812 N. SHIELDS 1,568 1955
AVERY CARRIAGE HOUSE 108 N. MELDUM 1,417 1879
AVERY HOUSE 328 MOUNTAIN 4,176 1879
CAR BARN 330 N. HOWES 15,000 1919
CITY HALL 300 LAPORTE - A 31,553 1979
CITY PARK BATHHOUSE / POOL FACs 1599 CITY PARK CENTER 5,180 1987
CITY PARK POOL 1599 CITY PARK CENTER 20,000 2003
CLUB TICO 1599 CITY PARK CENTER 12,838 1920
DOWNTOWN RESTROOMS 123 OAK STREET 400 1980
EPIC INDOOR POOL/ ICE RINK + ADDITION 1801 RIVERSIDE 97,960 1987 / 2003
FOSSIL CREEK PARK MAINT. FAC 5833 S LEMAY 6,550 2003
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY SHOP 1903 W. MOUNTAIN 2,304 2000
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY OFFICE 1900 W. MOUNTAIN 667 1938
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY SUP. RES. 149 GRANDVIEW 1,876 1975
OLD HAISTON OIL SITE FACILITIES 225 MAPLE ST 1,000 1913
HORTICULTURE FAC + STG FAC @ SPRING CREEK 2145 CENTRE AVE 5,500 2003 / 2007
LINCOLN CENTER 417 W. MAGNOLA 63,961 1930 / 1979
MARTINEZ FARM OFFICE 525 N. SHERWOOD 1,930 1935
MULBERRY INDOOR POOL 424 W. MULBERRY 25,000 1977
MUSEUM 220 MATHEWS 12,853 1900
MUSEUM - DISCOVERY CENTER 408 MASON COURT 55,000 2011
NORTHSIDE AZTLAN CTR 112 E. WILLOW 49,800 2007
OLD PURCHASING BLDG. 256 W MOUNTAIN 1,860 1966
OLD RICKER BROTHERS BLDG 220 N. HOWES 14,160 1970
OLD POLICE ANNEX 228-230 LAPROTE 4,550 1935
OPERATION SERVICES BLDG 300 LAPORTE - B 26,564 1957
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 413 S. BRYAN 21,075 1975
POLICE - DISTRICT 1 144 N MASON ST, SUITE 1 5,000 1999
POLICE BUILDING 2221 TIMBERLINE 99,800 2007
POLICE MARKSMAN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE 2554 MIDPOINT DRIVE 7,500 1991
POTTERY STUDIO 1541 W. OAK 3,300 1923
POTTERY STUDIO ANNEX 1541 W. OAK 1,784 1923
ROLLAND MOORE TENNIS CENTER 2201 S SHIELDS 600 1983
ROMERO HOUSE 425 10TH STREET 1,248 1927
SENIOR CENTER 1200 RAINTREE 41,220 1995
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT (SIU) AIR PORT 8,000 1998
SPRING CANYON PARK MAINT. SHOP 3156 S OVERLAND TRAIL 5,500 2007
WELCOME CENTER OFFICE I-25 WELCOME CENTER 600 2003
YOUTH ACTIVITY CTR. 415 E. MONROE 8,000 1984
824,522