No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/11/2011 - CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS DATE: January 11, 2011 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, WORK SESSION ITEM Ken Sampley, Josh Birks FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Cache La Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A component of the Stormwater program review requested by City Council in October 2009 included a review of the level of regulation protecting life and property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. Initial analysis of potential revisions and preliminary Stormwater staff recommendations were presented at the August 24, 2010 City Council Work Session. Three options were presented for Council review and direction as outlined below: Option#1: The Poudre River floodplain regulations are revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway; or Option 42: The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain; or Option#3: No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative). Staff was directed to pursue an extensive public outreach program to solicit and obtain input and feedback on the potential revisions. Council also requested that staff address the purpose and need to change the floodplain regulations, provide additional information on the level of impact to properties, determine the economic impacts associated with reduced development potential, better define life safety considerations and potential flood damage,and investigate other options including "No Adverse Impact." In accordance with Council direction to investigate other alternative approaches, an additional option was identified for further consideration and is listed below: Option#4: No Adverse Impact. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Given the importance of the Poudre River to the City of Fort Collins and its citizens: 1. Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations? 2. Does Council have comments and/or direction with regard to the specific options identified? January 11, 2011 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City is charged with the protection of life safety and mitigation of flood damage impacts to property. To that end, the goal of the Utilities Stormwater staff is to reduce the overall flood risk in the Poudre River basin. Further development in the floodplain results in increased risk to existing properties by increasing the flood elevation, changing the flow patterns and increasing velocities. ' By allowing more development in areas prone to flooding,additional people and property,including emergency response personnel, are at risk. The only floodplain regulations being reviewed are for the Poudre River because: • the Poudre River is the largest watershed in the city, and has the potential to generate the highest flows, deepest depths and highest velocities during a flood event. • the Poudre Basin is different from other basins because it cannot be modified with engineering solutions. • the best way to prevent future flood losses is through appropriate floodplain regulation consistent with industry best practices and community values. Elements and Purpose of Floodplain Administration The elements of floodplain administration consist of: • protection of life safety and property from the effects of flooding through proactive regulation, emergency response and long-term planning • encouraging sustainable construction practices that reduce burdens on future generations • reducing clean-up costs created by flood-damaged structures and property,minimizing the volume of landfill wastes • reduction of communitywide disruptions of commerce, livelihood and services Life safety The overriding purpose of floodplain regulations is to protect life safety. Having additional people working and acquiring services in the floodplain results in the possible need for evacuation and rescue. This not only puts the employees and customers at risk, but also the emergency response personnel performing rescue operations. Even if new structures are built"flood-safe",this does not solve the issue of evacuation during a flood event due to limitations on access to the building. Local, state, and federal officials are faced with rescue operations at great personal risk. The elevation and flows of the Poudre River may stay at an elevated level for days or weeks, requiring longer term relocation. Protect Property Protection of property is an issue not only for the new properties proposed to be built, but for existing properties. By allowing fill and obstructions in the floodplain, the water is being diverted in different directions. Properties not currently in the floodplain may be damaged by water that is redirected at their properties and may eventually be mapped into the floodplain. Additional fill and structures also cause increases in the flood elevations and flood velocities, which results in additional damages to existing properties. Debris generated by structures being damaged or floatable materials being swept off-site can cause increased damage to downstream properties and January 11, 2011 Page 3 often cause debris blockages at bridges. When bridges are blocked, the water cannot flow through the bridge and, thus backs-up, increasing the flood level, or the water finds a new flow path and floods properties that may not even be in the floodplain. City Code contains three distinct floodplain designations: the FEMA-mapped Poudre River floodplain, the four FEMA-mapped basin floodplains (Spring Creek, Dry Creek, Cooper Slough, and Boxelder Creek), and the remaining City-mapped floodplains. Poudre River Basin Characteristics and Flood History The Poudre River floodplain is separated because of its unique characteristics. The Poudre River basin has the largest drainage area (1,537 square miles upstream of the confluence with Boxelder Creek)and highest peak flows in a 100-year storm(13,300 cfs upstream of its confluence with Dry Creek)of any of the basins in Fort Collins. The velocities during the 100-year flood are calculated to reach over 13 feet per second in town, which can result in significant life safety issues and property damages. The River receives runoff not only for the areas upstream of the City, but also from the city's local drainage basins(West Vine,Old Town,Dry Creek, Spring Creek,and Boxelder Creek). The travel time of the flood peak from the mouth of the Canyon to the city limits is estimated to be 2 hours of less, resulting in very little time for warnings or evacuations. Major floods have occurred in 1864, 1891, and 1904. More recent smaller floods have occurred in 1983 and 1999. Attachment 1 provides additional historical information on Poudre River flooding. Snowmelt, rain on snow, heavy rains resulting in flash flooding, or dam breaks can all cause flooding on the Poudre River. With snowmelt and rain on snow, the water may stay high for days or weeks at a time. Flash flooding may result with very little warning time. When water hits an urban area and has nowhere to go,it finds the easiest path through or around buildings,over bridges jammed with debris, etc. An increase in obstructions due to new development (fill and buildings) creates higher flood elevations and velocities resulting in increased flooding of existing floodplain properties, as well as those outside the 100-year floodplain. Possible Structural Solutions to Mitigate Flood Damages The Poudre River Master Plan investigated alternatives and determined the only practicable construction project to effectively mitigate flooding was the Oxbow Levee. The Levee was constructed in 2006 and provides flood protection to the Buckingham neighborhood. There are no other feasible or cost effective construction projects or engineering solutions to effectively mitigate flooding damage on the Poudre River. The other solutions considered involved additional channelization of the River through widening or constructing additional levees. These were all discarded early in the process due to estimated costs and environmental impact. As a result,the only viable approach is to protect life safety and manage risk through floodplain regulation. Right to Regulate No outside agency is requiring the City to revise the regulations at this time. The current program meets and, in many instances, exceeds the requirements of both the State Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA encourages state and local governments to implement higher standards. The City is not a categorical industry leader in floodplain management in the State of Colorado. Attachment 2 provides a listing January 11, 2011 Page 4 of selected floodplain regulations for both regional and national communities and states. The City has the right to impose higher standards to improve the protection of life safety and property to the level it believes achieves the appropriate balance of risk for the community. Public Outreach and Feedback At the August 24, 2010 Council Work Session, staff was directed to pursue an extensive public outreach program to solicit and obtain input and feedback on the potential revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Council also requested that staff address the purpose and need to change the floodplain regulations, provide additional information on the level of impact to properties,and investigate other options,including"No Adverse Impact." A summary of the Public Outreach Program components is tabulated below: • Specific Property Owner Letters • Individual (One-on-one) Meetings • Presentations to Boards and Commissions • Presentations to City Departments • Presentations to Business Associations and Groups • Presentations to Other Government Agencies and Citizen Groups • Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Open House • Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Open House Presentation Boards at Aztlan Center • Media/News Releases • Website Specific Property Owner Letters A total of 232 letters identifying impacts of Options 1,2 and 3 on individual properties were mailed to property owners in October 2010. A sample property owner letter packet is provided in Attachment 3. The table below summarizes the total impacted acreages. Current Regulations Option 1 Option 2 Additional Acres Acres Acres Total Acres Acres in 100-Year in 0.5-foot in 0.1-foot in 0.1-foot in Flood Floodplain Floodway Floodway Floodway Fringe City Limits 380 203 42 245 178 Growth 860 283 69 354 576 Management Area Total 1240 487 111 598 753 January 11, 2011 Page 5 The table below summarizes the potential impacts and was included with the specific property letters. Floodway Flood Fringe Flood Fringe (Option 1 2 or 3 (Option 1 or 3 (Option 2 Build New Residential, Mixed-use Residential and Mixed- Residential, Structures by and Non-Residential—not Use—not allowed. Mixed-use and Elevating or Flood allowed. Non-Residential— Non-Residential proofing allowed, must elevate —not allowed. or flood proof Additions to Existing Residential, Mixed-use Residential and Mixed- Residential, Structures in Flood and Non-Residential—not Use—not allowed. Mixed-use and Fringe allowed. Non-Residential— Non-Residential allowed, must elevate —not allowed. or flood proof. Redevelopment in Residential, Mixed-use Residential and Mixed- Residential, Flood Fringe and Non-Residential—not use—allowed, must Mixed-use and (rebuild but not allowed. elevate. Non-Residential increase footprint) Non-Residential —not allowed. —allowed, must elevate or flood proof. Remodel Existing Allowed - subject to Allowed - subject to Allowed - Structures substantial improvement substantial subject to requirements.* improvement substantial requirements.* improvement requirements.* Non-structural Allowed. Must show no- Allowed. Allowed. Development—fill, rise to the 100-year flood parking lots, trails, level. detention ponds, recreational amenities Critical Facilities Not allowed. Not allowed. Not allowed. *Substantial improvement occurs when the cost of improvement, or amount of damage, equals or exceeds .50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or damage. For the Poudre Rive, the cost is cumulative over the life ofthe structure. Ifsubstantial improvement occurs, the structure must be elevated or floodproofed. Presentations to Boards and Commissions Presentations and interactive discussions of the proposed options were completed as shown below: Boards and Commissions Date Land Conservation & Stewardship August 11, 2010 Planning and Zoning August 13, 2010 Water Board August 19, 2010 Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 2010 Natural Resources Advisory Board December 15, 2010 January 11, 2011 Page 6 Presentations to City Departments Presentations and interactive discussions of the proposed options were completed as shown below: City Departments Advance Planning July 28, 2010 Natural Resources August 2, 2010 Natural Areas Senior Staff October 20, 2010 Natural Resources Senior Staff November 4, 2010 Planning and Economic Development November 18, 2010 Presentations to Business Associations and Groups Presentations and interactive discussions of the proposed options were completed as shown below: Business Groups North Fort Collins Business Association August 25, 2010 Downtown Development Authority September 9, 2010 Commercial Brokers September 16, 2010 Ft Collins Area Chamber of Commerce September 17, 2010 North Fort Collins Business Association September 22, 2010 North College Citizen Advisory Group October 7, 2010 South Fort Collins Business Association December 8, 2010 Presentations to Other Government Agencies and Citizen Groups Other Government Agencies Larimer Board of Co. Commissioners October 25, 2010 Other Groups Save the Poudre August 11, 2010 Wildlands Restoration Volunteers November 2, 2010 Open House November 18, 2010 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Open House On November 18,2010, staff facilitated an open house for the public and interested parties to obtain information on the potential floodplain regulation revisions and provide input and feedback. Approximately 120 people attended the open house. Fort Collins Stormwater and Floodplain Administration staff used presentation boards to convey key considerations associated with the potential revisions. FEMA sponsored a presentation by Ed Thomas (National Hazard Mitigation Association ), a nationally-recognized expert and frequent lecturer on Emergency Management issues. Mr. Thomas spoke on government's role in life safety, development roles and responsibilities, creating"win-win" solutions,decision making based on sustainable practices, and the economic case for prudent development. Attachment 4 includes the presentation boards that were utilized at the open house. Attachment 5 provides a summary of the comments received by topic frequency and the individual comments and input that was received at the open house. January 11, 2011 Page 7 Additional Public Comments and Feedback Additional public comments were gathered based on individual meetings and discussions, emails, handwritten comments, formal letters and other communications. Attachment 6 provides a listing of the detailed comments received and a list of specific meetings held with interested parties. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Detailed information on Options 1, 2 and 3 was provided at the August 24, 2010 Council Work Session and the staff summary is included as Attachment 7. A brief summary of these options is provided below along with more detailed information on Options 4. It is important to emphasize that none of the options prohibit revisions to the Poudre River Floodway and Floodplain by obtaining an approved FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A LOMR allows the floodplain map to be revised based on physical changes to the River and accompanying engineering analyses. If a LOMR process is not pursued -- Options 1, 2 and 3 provide the regulatory framework for development and redevelopment. It is also important to note that City Code outlines provisions for properties to request variances to the floodplain regulations in accordance with specific criteria. Option #1 —Adopt a 0.1 foot Rise Floodway This option returns the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations to a 0.1 foot rise floodway. Attachment 8 is a map of the Poudre River showing the floodplain and an approximation of the 0.1 foot floodway based on data from 2000. This boundary was initially adopted by City ordinance in 2000. In 2007, it was revised to a 0.5 foot rise standard for continuity with Larimer County standards. Benefits of returning the regulations to a 0.1 foot rise floodway include: • Reduced threats to life safety and property damage for existing and future properties (Primary) • Limits local funding demands for post-flood clean up for existing and future properties (Primary) • Reduced business related losses--i.e.,loss of service/sales,flood disruption,rental income, capital income, costs for temporary relocation (Primary) • Reduced demands on emergency response personnel (Primary) • Preservation of River functions (Secondary) • Protection of riparian health and habitat (Secondary). Detriments of returning the regulations to a 0.1 foot rise floodway include: • Restricts/limits structural development in the expanded floodway • Expansion of existing structures within the expanded floodway is more difficult • Discontinuity of regulations at jurisdictional boundaries with Larimer County • Costs to calculate and then re-map the floodway. January 11, 2011 Page 8 Option #2 —Not Allow Structures in the 100-year Floodplain Prohibiting structures from the entire 100-year floodplain would minimize the life safety and property damage risks associated with flooding on the Poudre River. Restriction of structures means less people living and working in areas of the highest risk. The definition of structures would follow what currently exists in Chapter 10 of the City Code. This would not prohibit the construction of bridges, trails, utilities, parking lots, detention and water quality ponds, parks and park amenities such as gazebos, trail signs, etc. Benefits of prohibiting new structural development in the 100-year floodplain include: • Further reduced threats to life safety and property damage for existing and future properties (Primary) • Limits local funding demands for post-flood clean up for existing and future properties(Primary) • Minimizes business related losses -- i.e., loss of service/sales, flood disruption, rental income, capital income, costs for temporary relocation (Primary) • Further reduced demands on emergency response personnel (Primary) • Expands the preservation of River functions (Secondary) • Expands the protection of riparian health and habitat (Secondary). Detriments of prohibiting new structural development in the 100-year floodplain include: • Prohibits all structural development in the floodplain • Expansion of existing structures within the expanded floodway is more difficult • Discontinuity of regulations at jurisdictional boundaries with Larimer County • Costs to calculate and then re-map the floodway. Option #3—No Change to Existing Regulations (Null Alternative) This option preserves the existing regulation which specifies a 0.5 foot rise floodway. It is less restrictive than either Option 1 or Option 2. Benefits of maintaining the existing 0.5 foot rise floodway include: • No implementation costs or City Code revisions (Primary) • Continuity of regulations at jurisdictional boundaries with Larimer County (Primary) Detriments of maintaining the existing 0.5 foot rise floodway include: • Allows new development in areas of flood risk • New development creates additional obstructions in the floodplain and diverts flood waters onto existing neighbors and potentially outside of the currently mapped floodplain • Limits preservation of River functions • Limits the protection of riparian health and habitat. January 11, 2011 Page 9 Option #4—No Adverse Impact No adverse impact(NAI)is a philosophical approach to managing land use and a national trend and best practice in the floodplain management arena. While current regulations focus on limitations to the property under development, NAI focuses on eliminating impacts to the surrounding properties. The goal of NAI is to prevent the worsening of flooding on existing homes, businesses and properties through responsible floodplain development. The basic NAI principle is that one Property owner can not adversely impact the rights of other property owners. NAI would promote new development and redevelopment on the Poudre River that: • Fits into the surrounding infrastructure and environment • Is equitable to surrounding property owners • Is economically and environmentally sustainable. It is important to note that NAI does not take the place of or circumvent floodplain regulations. NAI goes a step further in addressing social liabilities that exist within the current floodplain regulations. Current practices in floodplain management allow new development or redevelopment to increase flood hazards on adjacent and impacted properties, including existing homes and businesses. The current Poudre River floodplain regulations allow property owners to create obstructions to flood flow. These obstructions redirect floodwaters onto existing neighbors and can place properties within the floodplain that previously were not in the floodplain. An NAI strategy will move Fort Collins away from a development standards approach to managing hazards along the Poudre River, and shift the community closer to a"good neighbor" approach to protecting existing people, private and community assets, and infrastructure. Fort Collins' floodplain program already incorporates many of the tools of NAI through Chapter 10 of the City Code. The strategic implementation of these tools recognizes the conventional approach to controlling natural systems through human intervention is historically expensive, and tends to provide little deference to ecological systems and their value along the Poudre River corridor. Implementation of NAI would require that new development and/or redevelopment evaluate all impacts and demonstrate, through engineering analyses certified by a Professional Engineer and Certified Floodplain Manager: • No increase in base flood elevation (BFE) • No life safety or property damage potential for the new development and/or redevelopment during the 100-year flood • No adverse impacts on adjacent, upstream and downstream properties including: o No increase in flood velocities o No increase in erosion or sedimentation o No increase in flood damage. Benefits of a No Adverse Impact approach include: • Reduced threats to life safety and property damage (Primary) • Protection of existing properties, residents and businesses from additional flood hazards created from new development (Primary) • Reductions to local funding demands for post-flood clean up (Primary) January 11, 2011 Page 10 • Minimizes business related losses,i.e.,loss of service/sales,flood disruption,rental income, capital income, costs for temporary relocation (Primary) • Reduced demands on emergency response personnel (Primary) • Accommodates the preservation of River functions (Secondary) • Accommodates the protection of riparian health and habitat (Secondary). Detriments of a No Adverse Impact approach include: • Approach is results based versus prescriptive regulations — less certainty in identifying development and/or redevelopment opportunities until initial engineering analyses are completed • May reduce or limit potential development compared to that allowed with Options 1, 2 and 3. The Poudre River is specifically noted in Plan Fort Collins and other City planning documents as a vital asset to the City. There are competing community values associated with the Poudre River that include protection of life safety, reduction of property damage, economic considerations associated with new development and/or redevelopment of property within and adjacent to the Poudre River floodplain, and protection of Poudre River functions, including riparian habitat and biodiversity. Implementation of the approach identified in Option 4 would include extensive coordination between City staff from multiple departments. Option 4 is consistent with the City's Development Review Process and provides an approach to appropriately balance community values. ECONOMIC AND FLOOD DAMAGE ANALYSES In order to assist in the evaluation of the options under consideration and in response to Council's request, the City has contracted with two separate consultants to prepare independent analyses of both the economic impact to future development and the flood damage impacts to existing and future development. Four geographic areas were selected for analysis: • Area I - A portion of the North College Urban Renewal Area(URA) north of downtown. • Area 2 - The Link-N-Green Golf Course redevelopment parcel near Lincoln/Lemay • Area 3 - An area east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street • Area 4 - A portion of WW Reynolds Office Park, Gateway Medical Clinic, and Neenan Development offices north and south of East Prospect Avenue ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS—Prepared by EPS Methodology EPS examined the County Assessor parcel data in four identified areas along the Poudre River. The areas were identified by the Economic Health Office, based on the potential opportunity for redevelopment they represent.. The parcels in each area were aggregated into subareas based on contiguous ownership and surrounding land uses. Each subarea is composed of one or more parcels which are likely to be assembled and developed together or independently with complementary uses. The subareas form the basis for the analysis of(re)development potential estimated by EPS. EPS estimated (re)development potential of each area based on current regulations (No Change) including current subarea plans, zoning, land use regulations, and floodplain regulations. The January 11, 2011 Page 11 estimated (re)development potential in each area is then compared to the proposed floodplain regulations options presented to City Council in August, including: • Option 1 — 1/10 foot Floodway Expansion, or • Option 2 —No Structures in the 100-Year Floodplain. The analysis encompassed by the four areas includes approximately 305 acres of land or 17 percent of the total acres impacted by the Floodplain in the City(1,803.5 acres). Under existing regulations, no development is allowed in the 1/2 Foot Floodway and limited development (residential is excluded)is allowed in the Flood Fringe. The current regulations leave 240 acres of net developable land, meaning 21 percent of the total does not allow for structures currently. An estimate of the (re)development potential for this area was developed as the baseline to measure the potential impact of Option 1 and 2. The proposed change to the Floodway standard under Option 1 and Option 2 reduce net developable land in the four areas. The impacts include (See Table 3 in Attachment 9 for details by area): • Option 1 —Leaves approximately 215 acres of net developable land, meaning 29 percent of the total would not allow for structures or expansion of existing structures. • Option 2—Leaves approximately 114 acres of net developable land,meaning 63 percent of the total area would not allow for structures or expansion of existing structures. It is the change in net developable area from the baseline established under the No Change option that forms the basis for the economic impact presented in the EPS report. Key Assumptions and Limitations • The assessment of future development potentials is a planning level estimate for future build out over an extended timeframe of up to 50 years. • It, therefore, represents the best use determination of future development over an extended period of time based on existing regulations (subarea plans, zoning, land use code, and floodplain regulations). • The estimated development potential may or may not be realized due to multiple factors and the actual time period could be shorter or longer. • The figures are therefore, designed to estimate a maximum future impact based on current economic conditions, which may change. • EPS has not conducted any project specific market forecasts and is therefore, unable to provide estimates of development by time period. • Current market values are applied by land use category to estimate development values and potential tax losses. • No actual determination of value for identified development areas,ownerships,or individual parcels is either offered or implied. • The actual value of any parcels or sites cannot be determined without more extensive appraisal work and will depend on multiple factors, including but not limited to: o the size of the parcel, shape, access, visibility 0 the willingness to sell January 11, 2011 Page 12 o the quality and viability of any existing uses, occupancy levels,and/or net operating incomes o larger economic and market conditions present at the time of sale. • In limited cases,the extent of the floodway or floodplain regulatory change would make new development or redevelopment unlikely. In these circumstances the existing land uses would likely be maintained or if the property is vacant, would remain undeveloped. • The lack of development potential does not imply that the property has no value. The property owner has a number of potential scenarios to maximize value, including sale to an adjacent property owner to achieve the combined potential of a larger site and/or floodplain mitigation measures to reduce the area of floodway or floodplain impacts. • All economic impacts (direct, indirect, and induced) reported represent gross potential impacts, not "net new" impacts. If the development potential identified under each option is not built in the four areas,a portion of this projection of private construction(office,retail, residential, etc.) may likely occur elsewhere in the City and surrounding area(even outside City limits) to meet regional demand. Summary of Findings The following findings come from the full report prepared by EPS and included as Attachment 9. These findings provide an overall summary presenting the relative impact of the proposed floodplain regulations (see Table below and Attachment 9 for details). Option 1 - 1/10 foot Floodway Expansion • Based on the change to net developable area the impact on development potential under this option for the four analysis areas is estimated at 352,000 square feet. • The change in development potential represents approximately $66.4 million in total development value. • The change in development potential represents approximately$576,000 in potential annual tax revenue to the City ($144,000 in property tax and $432,000 in sales tax). • One-time economic impacts to the construction industry from the change in development potential is approximately $79.3 million or 665 jobs. • Ongoing economic impacts to all industries from the change in commercial/retail and office development potential is approximately $138.5 million annually or 830 jobs. Option 2 —No Structures in the 100-Year Floodplain • Based on the change to net developable area the impact on development potential under this option for the four analysis areas is estimated at 1.4 million square feet. • The change in development potential represents approximately $253.0 million in total development value. • The change in development potential represents approximately $2.5 million in potential annual tax revenue to the City ($470,000 in property tax and $2.0 million in sales tax); • One-time economic impacts to the construction industry from the change in development potential is approximately $303.4 million or 2,540 jobs. • On-going economic impacts to all industries from the change in commercial/retail and office development potential is approximately $644.9 million annually or 3,760 jobs. January 11, 2011 Page 13 Option 4—No Adverse Impact The analysis by EPS did not include an estimate of the economic impacts from this proposed option. However, the analysis does recognize the following points about this proposed option: • The.proposed changes under Option 1 and Option 2 will affect individual parcels and ownerships differently. • Some parcels may have only minor portions affected by the floodway and/or floodplain while others may have large portions of the parcel restricted from future development opportunity. • In some cases, the floodplain mitigation measures used in common practice may reduce or even eliminate the impact to a particular parcel or ownership. • The feasibility and costibenefit of these engineered solutions should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Summary of Economic Impact Analysis Results Description No Change-0.5 Floodway Option 1-0.1 Floodway Option 2-100-year Floodplain New New Diff.fmm No Change %Diff. New Diff.from No Change %Diff. Development(Sq.Ft.) 2.795,098 2,443,024 (352,074) -13% 1,430,365 (1,364,733) -49% Market Value $488,946,678 $422,557,646 ($66,389,032) -14% $235,465,863 ($253,480,815) -52% Property Tax $749,369 $605,555 ($143,815) -19% $278,954 ($470,415) -63% Sales Tax $2,637.132 2 205 344 431 788 -16% $643,910 ($1,993,222) -76% Total Tax $3,386,501 $2,810,899 ($575,602) -17% $922.864 ($2,463,637) -73% Employment Impacts(Jobs) One-Time Impacts Direct 3,279 2,834 -445 -14% 1,576 -1,704 -52% Indirect 688 594 -93 -14% 331 -357 -52% Induced 929 803 -126 -14% 446 -483 -52% Total 4,896 4,231 -665 -14% 2,352 -2,544 -52% Annual Ongoing Impacts Direct 4,028 3,468 -560 -14% 1,501 -2,527 -63% Indirect 823 719 -103 -13% 348 -475 -58% Induced 1 172 1 003 -169 -14% 414 -758 -65% Total 6,023 5,190 -833 -14% 2,263 -3,760 -62% Economic Output Impacts One-Time Impacts Direct $391,157,342 $338.046,117 ($53,111,225) -14% $187,932,690 ($203,224,652) -52% Indirect $82,052,685 $70,911,596 ($11,141,089) -14% $39.422,453 ($42,630,232) -52% Induced $110,779.280 $95,737,703 ($15.041,577) 114% $53,224,229 ($57,555.050) -520). Total $583,989,306 $504,695,416 ($79,293,891) -14% $280,579,372 ($303,409,934) -52% Annual Ongoing Impacts Direct $779,804,602 $688,158,658 ($91,645,944) -12% 353,382,901 (5426,421301) -55% Indirect $195.675,433 $173.596,075 ($22,079,358) -11% 92,102,945 ($103,572,488) -53% Induced $206.584.510 $181,792,106 ($24792405) -12% 91,697,143 ($114.887,368) -56% Total $1,182,064,545 $1,043,546,839 ($138,517,706) -12% $537,182,989 ($644,881,557) -55% Source: City of Fort Collins;Economic&Planning Systems January 11, 2011 Page 14 Flood Damage Impact Analysis AMEC Earth and Environmental (AMEC)prepared a report that estimates the economic and other detrimental impacts from flooding on existing and proposed development in the identified four geographic study areas along the Poudre River. FEMA's GIS-based natural hazard loss estimation tool (HAZUS-MH)was used to perform flood loss estimations for existing development. HAZUS- MH determines flood damage on a building-specific basis based on the value of the structure and the estimated depth of water. The FEMA and US Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) have developed damage functions which relate the depth of water on a structure to the amount of damage to the structure, as well as its contents. A similar approach was used by the City's Stonnwater Utility to determine damages to existing structures when the Stormwater Master Plan was updated in the early 2000s. Each of the impacted buildings in the study areas was identified by address and structure type. Structure values for each parcel were estimated using Larimer County property value data. Flood depths at each structure were determined based on the computed water surface elevations for the 10- year, 50-year and 100-year events. Future structures were assumed to be elevated or flood proofed above the 100-year water surface elevation and therefore will not suffer significant structural damage. However, indirect damages and costs will still be incurred. It is not possible to quantify all of the future impacts to future structures in the floodplain; however, some of the impacts can be estimated based on the estimate of the extent, type and location of future development. Flood impacts to proposed development focused on flood disruption losses and development projections combined with estimation based on accepted methods and values associated with both HAZUS-MH and benefit cost analysis software products. Proposed development projected building occupancy and square footage was obtained from the economic impact study consultant (EPS) to ensure consistency in development assumptions. AMEC also provided a qualitative discussion of potential impacts that are difficult to quantify that supplements the disruption cost calculations. The four geographic study areas contain a total of 149 existing structures within the 100-year floodplain. The existing structures are primarily commercial,however Study Areas 1 and 3 include some residential development. More detailed information on the structures can be found in the AMEC report. Key Assumptions • The assessment of future development potential is based on information provided by EPS and is a planning level estimate for future build out over an extended timeframe of up to 50 years. • Existing damages are based on depths from FEMA Flood Insurance Study profiles. • Existing structure values with assumed contents values (100% of structure value for commercial, 50%of structure for residential). Included business interruption losses,debris removal costs based on City data,flood disruption costs,rental income losses,capital income losses and sales tax reductions. • Existing damages did not include losses for floods greater than 100-year. • Future damages assumed new or substantially-improved development will conform to local FP regulations and limit/reduce losses. Per the report, "the study assumes no direct building impacts from the 100 year flood to new development, though the possibility could exist due to errors in mapping and/or debris modifying the flow and impacts of floodwaters. " • Future damages include capital-related income losses of lost services and sales due to restricted business access, capital-related income losses of net loss of waters, displacement January 11, 2011 Page 15 costs for temporary relocation, displacement costs for business disruption, displacement costs for rental income loss to building owners, debris removal costs. • Future damages did not quantify or include damage to buildings, risk to employees, risk to customers,casualties,emergency services time,resources,and risk to personnel,evacuation and rescue costs, cleanup costs,dewatering costs,parking lot damage,landscaping damage, vehicles (personal or commercial/fleet), equipment or materials stored outside and not confined or anchored, utility damages (sewer, water), buildings with failed or no flood proofing,contents,road repair,bridge repair,bike path repair,damages for floods exceeding the 100-year discharge. Geographic Study Area#1 (College and Vine) is most prone to losses from flooding due to being the most developed of the four areas. The highest future damage is likely for Study Area#2 due to potential for future development. Potential exposure of additional people to flood risks associated with new development should not be underestimated, though specific impacts are difficult to quantify. Losses associated with future floods on the Poudre to existing and future development will be shared by the City, individuals, and businesses. The results of the Flood Damage Impact Analysis prepared by AMEC are presented in Attachment 10. The table below estimates the number of both existing and additional employees working within the 100-Year Floodplain using the maximum development assumptions from the EPS study: Estimated Employees within 100-Year Floodplain Assuming Maximum Development Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Area 1 19156 446 19270 Estimated Existing Employees* 324 324 324 Estimated Additional Employees** 832 122 946 Area 2 11776 1,211 2,041 Estimated Existing Employees* 147 147 147 Estimated Additional Employees** 1629 1064 1894 Area 3 1,150 692 1,332 Estimated Existing Employees* 377 377 377 Estimated Additional Employees** 773 315 955 Area 4 270 36 270 Estimated Existing Employees* 36 36 36 Estimated Additional Employees** 234 0 234 This estimate does not include emergency services workers *Assuming 4 employees per 1,000 square foot —**Assuming Maximum Development January 11, 2011 Page 16 Sustainability—Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts The floodplain management program is,at its core,a safety program. The focus of the work is how best to mitigate risk, the hazards to life, and the risk to property that occurs as a result of flooding events. The economic analysis compares the potential damage costs against the potential development revenues. The social component is increased life safety provided by the elimination of structures in the floodplain. Given the characteristics of the Poudre River basin (drainage area, 100-year peak discharge and velocities, types of flooding, flood history, lack of cost-effective structural improvements and minimal warning time), options 1, 2 and 4 offer various regulatory alternatives to minimizing the flood risk. Existing properties in the floodplain are already at risk and additional development will only increase the life safety risk and property damages when a flood occurs. It is the responsibility and duty of the City to proactively manage foreseeable risks to protect current and future citizens from the costly physical, financial and emotional impacts of flooding. ATTACHMENTS 1. Cache La Poudre River Flooding History 2. Selected National/State/Local Floodplain Regulations 3. Sample Property Owner Impact Letter Packet 4. November 18, 2010 Open House Presentation Boards 5. November 18,2010 Open House Individual Comments and Summary of Comments by topic 6. Additional Public Comments and Feedback 7. August 24, 2010 Council Work Session Summary 8. Poudre River Floodplain and Floodway Comparison Map 9. Economic Impact Analysis (EPS Inc.) 10. Flood Damage Impact Analysis (AMEC) 11. PowerPoint presentation FouJre Kiver FlooJi ATTACHMENT 110 n The location of the City of Fort Creating rort 011 i n s HI sto r Collins is where it is today because of flooding on the Poudre River. The first Damage was military post, Camp Collins, was extensive in the originally established near the present Andersonville day town of LaPorte. It was destroyed Pilo 'T , neighborhood in 1864 when the Poudre River (Lema Avenue flooded. Cam Collins was relocated ,. - . - - - y p looking north to higher ground near present day toward Vine Old Town in Fort Collins . _ - U Drive) after the r , ' r • flood in 1904. There are several well-documented large floods on the Poudre River high water mark r. around the turn of the century. A flood in 1891 was due to a dam break on Chambers Lake. The most notable flood was in 1904 . This On June 8, 2010, the storm was greater than a 100-year Poudre River, as seen ' event and resulted in the death of from Lemay Avenue Fort Collins resident Robert Strauss . looking north, had flows The Buckingham, Alta Vista and ofabout3, 400 cubic Andersonville neighborhoods were feet per second (cfs). severely damaged by the 1904 flood. Typical flow at this - location is 100 cfs. Numerous floods have occurred on the Poudre River over time . The chart below shows the highest flows on the Poudre River from 1864 to today. The most recent flooding on the Peak Discharges for the Cache la Poudre River Poudre River was relatively minor ( recorded gage record 1882 to present) and due to snowmelt in June 2010 . 200 2 600 0 In the spring of 1999 , minor flooding 25000 24000 3 :.' d �_ peak Discharge (CFS) also occurred, caused by rain on snow 23000 t 0 0 3 LL �, �100-year Discharge (13,300 cfs) 22000 ._ during a warm period in April. The 21000 "' `° 20 W " Y flood lasted only a few days, but 19000 00 - — � 17000 a a resulted in a great deal of bank erosion 016000 a E rn 15000 £ L and threatened many properties . t 14000 13000 0 12000 m 11000 10000 �= Although the Poudre River has not a 9000 a e000 flooded often in recent years, we know 000 6000 from the past that large floods on the 5000 4000 Poudre River can happen . Only the 3000 2000 1000 future will tell how flooding on the ° Poudre River could change the history v rn v rn v rn v m v rn v rn v m v rn v rn v m v rn v rn v rn v rn v rn v rn v m m ro ro ro ro ro m m ro ro ro ro m m rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 Year ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` of Fort Collins again . 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT2 Selected National, State, and Local Floodplain Regulations Compared to Fort Collins by hydrologic relevance, CRS rating, or Regional Higher Floodplain Standards Community Name Substantial CRS + Published Date Buffers or Corridor Highest Minimum Elevate / Floodproof Improvement Rating (or State of Standards Floodway Rise Restrictions? Freeboard Level Additions? Threshold S.I. Time Period New Buildings in FW? Critical Facilities 0.2% ac Standards? N/A) Other Notes and Standards Federal Emergency Yes, if prove no-nse through H+H, obtain ALL STATES Management Agency 1 0 ft. None OFF See adjacent 50% P E certification, and elevate structure to No standards No Standards N/A (FEMA, 2010) freeboard level_ State of Colorado Yes, if prove no-nse through H+H, obtain Statewide LOMR-F does not remove freeboard requirement. Colorado Water Conservation 0 5 ft. None 10 ft. above BEE See adjacent 50% PE certification, and elevate structure to Must elevate or floodproof 2 0 Guidelines and recommendations 300 pts. All OFF changes of 0 3 ft or greater (up or down) Board (CWCB, 2011) heeboard level_ ft. above BFE. only U M C_ esfd require a LOMR. No life-safety or emergency LOMR-F does not remove any flootlplain Land Use buffers and 2.0 ft. (Poudre River) above Cumulative for response structures in 500- 500-yr restriction of life-safety ordinance requirements. Any change to BEE, Colorado Fort Collins (2010) 0.5 k. to No-Rise 0.5 k. to 2.0 ft 50% Poutlre, 1-year for all Non-residential ON w/ no-rise. yr. Same for 100-yr, with and emergency response crit. Class 4 floodway boundary, or flootlplain boundary erosion buffers BEE other basins. addition of haz-mat facilities requires CLOMRILOMR before permits are restrictions. issued by 10-45(2). 1 0 ft. above the encroached or Only for substantial (2010) pa County (p No. All uses must have a low flood damage Arizona (2010) 1 0 ft. Erasion buffer (State),alluvial fans natural FEE 10); 2 0 ft for improvements (see Highest 50% potential_ No Class 5 shallow flooding areas Freeboard Level) May be delineated at staffs 1 0 ft., and Ta < 1 25x gem- Erosion buffer (State), and 0.1 ft_, and Tzs < 1 25x goo- choosing ff not already mapped. Cannot increase V100 more than 10% or 1 0 fps, feature height, and T25< 15x geologic features feature height, and T25 < 15x Only for substantial No. Only uses that do not require fill, Haz. Mat, emergency Critical facilities must be outside cannot cause more than 0.1-ft. of rise with Arizona Pima County (2010) improvements (see Highest 50% excavation, structures, or storage of response, hospitals/respite 02% a< FP, or elevate 1 Oft above Class 5 encroachment. Geologic features restrictions the tleplh,w, and others (see including alluvial fans and the tlepth,w, and others (see Freeboard Level) equipment and materials care, public utilities. OFF or 0 2% a-c flood level (higher also apidy No storage offloatables or hazadous last column) confinement (canyons) last column) of two)_ Also need tlryland access materials in the SFHA. and emergency response plan. 2 0 ft. above OFF, or 2 0 ft. Yes, if prove no-nse through H+H, obtain None yet, but see adjacent No current standards, but new Colorado Boulder (2010) 0 5 ft. None above flood depth for AO See adjacent 50% 1 year PE certifcation' and elevate structure to standards being considered for zones heeboard level_ column. critical facilities by City Council. 100-yr flootlplain is considered unsuitable for Colorado Centennial + Arapaho 0 5 ft. Non e 2 0 ft. above BEE 2 0 ft. 50% No Class 8 human habitation. No structures, fill, subs(. County (2010) improvements, or detention allowed in the FP or FW. No floatables or haz. Mal. 0 0 ft for the Roaring Fork No increases permitted on any properties by River, and 0 5 fl_ from WSEL or No new structures within 1 0 ft. above OFF for lowest development activities in the FW_ All area within Colorado Eagle County (2008) EGL for all others. Never closer 15 ft of the stream side of floor, OFF for adjacent fill and See adjacent No Class 8 the 100-yr FP is to be protected in it's natural than 25 ft_ from edge of the the flood fringe crawlspaces. state. No grading or vegetation removal. No natural channel storage of floatables orflammables. No gamage or debris storage. Buffer for all tlev. 25 fl. Kentucky Louisville + ,iefferson Unknown from solid bl 5 min 1 0 ft. above BEE See adjacent 50% 10 years Unknown Permitted with treatment Class 5 County Louisville streams on ]5 min. USGS quad maps. 0.lft. to 1 0 ft., depending upon 1 0 ft. above BFE, or 2 0 ft. 50%, or 25% if Yes, if prove no-nse through H+H, obtain Mecklenberg County Variance and CLOMR required for use in BIT or North Carolina waterway. County basins standard is None above H A G. if no BIT See adjacent damaged twice in 10 See adjacent PE codification, and elevate structure to Class 6 (2000) 0 5 ft. for most basins. provided_ yrs fleeboartl level change in FW elev or width_ 18 inches above BEE for new Fill around structures in construction. Can build to the Yes, if show and county uses are safe for the fringe must be at least FEE 1 yr before flood mitigation residents upstream and downstream. No Nevada Clark County (200]) 1 0 ft. as high as the BIT within project is completed within 1 yr 15 ft. 50% Cumulative (?) new hazardous material buildings allowed Class 6 25 ft of structures of building peril and has been documented in a FEMA- unless variance is approved approved CLOMR. Must prove no adverse impact to neighbors with H+H, including rise over 0.5 ft or 10 ft. above BEE for SFHA, Not permitted in SFHA unless 10-ft freeboard for new and expansion of flootlplain boundary. If adverse , Nevada Douglas County (2010) 0 5 ft. Alluvial Mn standards antl 1 Oft above H A G. in See adjacent 50% 5 years Yes d prove no-rise through H+H, show no impact >0 5 ft rise discovered, must submit no alternative exists and public substantially improved structures, Class 6 Shaded X Zones use, and issue a CLOMR. is notified measured above site H A G. CLOMR. Change in flootlplain boundary must submit LOMR. NAI statement in Sec_ 20 50.160 as cumulative rise of 1 0 ft. No solid fencing in SFHA_ New Mexico Las Cruces (effective 1 0 ft. None OFF See adjacent 50% Yes, 6 prove no-rise through H+H Class 6 sate unknown) Erosion hazard boundary, 2 0 ft above FEE for Geologic hazards and erosion hazards must be Utah St. George (2003) 1 0 ft. lateral migration' and residential, 10 ft. for non- See atljacenl 50% Ves, if prove no-rise through H+H Class 7 evaluatetl by a P.E- Must also check longterm geologic hazard degradation and lateral migration/erosion All considerations. residential analyses have a 100-year planning period 1 of 2 Selected National, State, and Local Floodplain Regulations Compared to Fort Collins by hydrologic relevance, CRS rating, or Regional Higher Floodplain Standards Community Name Substantial CRS + Published Date Buffers or Corridor Highest Minimum Elevate / Floodproof Improvement Rating (or State of Standards Floodway Rise Restrictions? Freeboard Level Additions? Threshold S.I. Time Period New Buildings in Filly? Critical Facilities 0.2% ac Standards? N/A) Other Notes and Standards 3 FWs, regulated the same. Defined by FEMA 1 o-ft. use. Channel migration zones 2 0 ft. above BEE for new No buildings or fill, with agricultural Must elevate 3 Oft above All fill in flood fringe must be shown to cause no Washington Pierce County (2010) deep/fast-Flowing FW (3 ft_ deep - FW construction and substantial See adjacent 50% 5 years exemptions for regionally-significant OFF, or build on dry section of Class 3 use to 0 001 ft (one one-thousandth) by technical or 3 fps, or combo), and channel improvement farming structures (no footprint expansions). parcel if available_ modeling. migration risk Wyoming Cheyenne (2010) Assumed 1 Oft None 1 0It above OFF, or match See adjacent 50% Yes, if prove no-rise through H+H Class Zane AO/AH elevations. Illinois State of Illinois (2008) 0.1 ft. None Yes - details undocumented Indiana State of Indiana (2008) 0.1 ft. None 2 0 fi. above BEE See adjacent If meet 25% cumulative Discouraged but not prohibited for res. Non Statewide Desire to update current real and carry 2008 State of Iowa (Dept. of Statewide 1 0 ft_ above 1% aci ition footprint, must res permitted w/ cumul_ no-rise_ Can fall See Max Damage Potential Elev or 0oodproof 1 Oft or higher 300 pts_ flooding momentum to rings update. Cedar Falls Iowa Natural Resources) 1 0 ft. None ann chance storm, and max elevate 1 Oft min (only 51% Cumulative back on no dwellings in 100-yr FP w/o and Governors Office for max damage potentiate buildings U ML. right limits vertical fill on a lot to 3 0 ft , of lot and % (2010) damage 1 0 ft. above 500-yr applies to post-1965 dryland access if necessary. Must mitigate recommendations now filled, and 1 0 ft_ freeboard above and . structures) any use Michigan State of Michigan 0.1 ft. None 10 fi. above BEE See adjacent Yes - details undocumented (2008) State of Minnesota Minnesota (2008) 0 5ft None 10 ft. above BEE See adjacent No fill permitted in the floodway, and all earth fill If failure or intenuption of and erosion protection must be certified by a P.E. services from public utilities, No fill may be permitted that increases BEE on State of Montana existing development. Residential fill above BEE Erasion hydraulic na based streets, and budges results in Montana (effective date D5 ft. on hydraulic analysis_ 20 ft. above BEE See adjacent 50% No danger to public health or must extend 15 hazardous beyond building perimeter. unknown) safety, must elevate or Solid or re offl waste disposal prohibited in flootlproof FP_ Storage of Flammable, explosive, or buoyant materials in FP only allowed if elevated or floodproofed. New Jersey State of New Jersey 0 2 ft Criteria in fire flooded area (2008) for O @ T = 125 yes If failure or interruption of No variances are permissible against the services from public utilities, freeboard requirements_ Gayland access required State of Wisconsin streets, and bridges results in for residential construction in Flood fringe. Fill for Wisconsin (2004) No-Rise None 2 0 ft. above BEE See adjacent 50% Cumulative No danger to public health or For levee design requirements only freeboard purposes must extend 15 ft from safety, must elevate or perimeter of buildings. Solid or hazardous waste Floodproof disposal prohibited in FP. Iowa max damage potential = flood damage potential of hosipitals + like institutions, data buildings of public value, buildings or complexes dangerous to the public, or fuel storage facilities, power installations for emergency use, prisons, or complexes of similar nature = elev. or FP l 0 ft or above. 2 Governors Office wanted WRCC to recommend flood damage reductions. Idea to look at 500-yr standard Legislation failed. 500-yr standard is a destination for the future. Cedar Falls adopted 10-ft above 500-yr standard, Iowa City looking at 500-yr. Ames = 3Oft, Chelsea adopted cumulative definition ofsubstantial damage (2-in-10yr, with 30 ftfreeboad) = community of287 people with 19 5% living under the poverty line in 2000 census. 2of2 ATTACHMENT 3 City of Fort Collins Fo Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970,221 ,6700 970.221 .6619 — fax 970.224 .6003 — TDD utilities@fcgov. com fcgov. com/utilities October 25 , 2010 Property Owner Name Property Owner Address Property Owner Address Dear Property Owner/Tennant: As you may know, the City of Fort Collins is reviewing the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River. If current floodplain regulations change, non-residential property owners and tenants in the Poudre River 100- year Floodplain will be directly affected by these changes . We are writing to notify you of the options being considered and provide specific information on how your property may be regulated in the future . Three regulation options are being considered: Option # 1 : Adopt a 0 . 1 foot-rise floodway; Option #2 : Prohibit all structures in the 100-year floodplain; or Option #3 : No change to the regulations . Attached you will find two maps that show your parcel and the floodplain mapping applicable to each regulation option. In addition, we enclose an explanation of the proposed regulations and effect on your property for each option. This analysis shows the land acreage impact of the proposed regulations . Please refer to Frequently Asked Questions for more information on flooding history, flood risk and property damage potential and other solutions previously considered. Also included is more information on the purpose for the overall review of Stormwater guiding concepts and components of the Stormwater program. A special open house is planned to discuss the floodplain regulation review. November 18, 2010 4 — 7900 pm Drake Center, 802 W. Drake Rd. In addition, we would like to talk with you individually about the proposed regulations and the specific implications for your property. If you are interested, please call (970) 221 -6682 for an appointment. Visit our Web site, http ://www. fcgov. com/stormwater/ for information about the proposed floodplain regulations, to comment on the proposed options or to learn about the Stormwater Management Program. Sincerely, n iT Jon Haukaas , P .E. Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager Parcel # XXXXXXXXXX 1 of 10 Explanation of Proposed Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Options and Effect on Your Property This information provides more detail about the floodplain regulations, including floodplain maps, proposed regulations, and specific information about your property. We suggest you review this packet by looking at the maps along with the table below, and then review the acreage information as the third step . Explanation of Proposed Regulations The 100-year floodplain is comprised of two regulatory areas : the floodway and the flood fringe. The floodway has greater depths of water, higher velocities, and the most restrictive regulations . The flood fringe usually has shallower depths and lower velocity. The table below summarizes changes the three options have on the primary floodplain regulations for the floodway and flood fringe . Red text indicates where the regulations would become more restrictive, black text indicates current regulations. or Floodway Flood Fringe Flood Fringe (Option 1 , 2, or 3 (Option 1 or 3 (Option 2 Build New Structures Residential, Mixed-use and Non- Residential and Mixed-Use — Residential, Mixed-use and by Elevating or Residential — not allowed. not allowed. Non-Residential — not Floodproofing Non-Residential — allowed, allowed. must elevate or floodproof. Additions to Existing Residential, Mixed-use and Non- Residential and Mixed-Use — Residential, Mixed-use and Structures in Flood Residential — not allowed. not allowed. Non-Residential — not Fringe Non-Residential — allowed, allowed. must elevate or floodproof Redevelopment in Residential, Mixed-use and Non- Residential and Mixed-use — Residential, Mixed-use and Flood Fringe (rebuild Residential — not allowed. allowed, must elevate. Non-Residential — not but not increase Non-Residential —allowed, allowed. footprint) must elevate or floodproof. Remodel Existing Allowed - subject to substantial Allowed - subject to Allowed - subject to Structures improvement requirements. * substantial improvement substantial improvement requirements. * requirements. Non-structural Allowed. Must show no-rise to Allowed. Allowed. Development— fill, the 100-year flood level. parking lots, trails, detention ponds, recreational amenities Critical Facilities Not allowed. Not allowed. Not allowed. * Substantial Improvement occurs when the cost of improvement, or amount of damage, equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or damage. For the Poudre River, the cost is cumulative over the life of the structure. If substantial improvement occurs, the structure must be elevated or floodproofed. Chapter 10 of City Code contains the official floodplain regulations for the City of Fort Collins . Another useful tool for learning about floodplain regulations is the Poudre River Quick Guide that can be found at : hqp ://www. fcgov. com/stonnwater/pdf/quick _ uigu de-poudre .pdf 220090330 . - 1 - Parcel # XXXXXXXXXX 2of10 Analysis of Your Property Below is an explanation of each proposed option and the data specific to your parcel. This data is then analyzed by comparing the mapping to the proposed regulations to describe the impact of each option on your property. Option #1 : Adopt a 0. 1 foot Rise Floodway This option would expand the area being regulated as a floodway, the areas on your map shown in dark blue and yellow. Note : If Option # 1 is adopted, the 0 . 1 foot floodway delineation must be updated. As currently shown, the 0 . 1 foot floodway should be considered an approximation since it is based on older mapping and data (circa 2007) and contains inaccuracies resulting from recent City projects, developments and map revisions that have taken place since 2007 . If you have 0 . 1 foot floodway (yellow color) on your property, it is important that Fort Collins Utilities staff meet with you to fully explain the floodplain mapping. Please call (970) 221 -6682 to set up a meeting. For this option, your map shows : Parcel Area in Acres : 15 . 1 Acres in Floodway (0 . 5 foot floodway + additional 0 . 1 foot floodway) 12 . 041 Acres in Flood Fringe 2 . 581 Total Acres in 100 -year Floodplain 14 . 622 This means : 0.478 acres of property are currently not mapped in the 100-year floodplain and residential, mixed-use, and non-residential structures or non-structural development not restricted by the floodplain regulations (other than prohibition of critical facilities if mapped in the 500- year floodplain) . 2 . 581 acres of your property would be mapped in the flood fringe and available for development of elevated or floodproofed non-residential structures and non-structural development, subject to the floodplain regulations ; and 12 . 041 acres of your property would be mapped in the floodway and only available for non- structural development, subject to the floodplain regulations . - 2 - Parcel # XXXXXXXXXX 3of10 Option #2 : Prohibit All Structures in the 100-Year Floodplain This option would change the regulations for the flood fringe (see table on page 1 ) . The floodplain and floodway mapping would not change . For this option, your map shows : Parcel Area in Acres : 15 . 1 Acres in 0 . 5 foot Floodway (current standard) 10 . 356 Acres in Flood Fringe 4 .266 Total Acres in 100-year Floodplain 14 . 622 This means : 0 .478 acres of property are currently not mapped in the 100-year floodplain and residential, mixed-use, and non-residential structures and non-structural development are not restricted by the floodplain regulations (other than prohibition of critical facilities if mapped in the 500-year floodplain) . 14. 622 acres of your property would be mapped in the floodway and flood fringe and would only be available for non-structural development, subject to the floodplain regulations . Option #3 : No Change to the Regulations For this option, your map shows : Parcel Area in Acres : 15 . 1 Acres in 0 . 5 foot Floodway (current standard) 10 . 356 Acres in Flood Fringe 4 .266 Total Acres in 100-year Floodplain 14 . 622 This means : 0 .478 acres of property are currently not mapped in the 100-year floodplain and residential, mixed-use, and non-residential structures or non-structural development are not restricted by the floodplain regulations (other than prohibition of critical facilities if mapped in the 500-year floodplain) . 4.266 acres of your property are currently mapped in the flood fringe and available for development of elevated or floodproofed non-residential structures and non-structural development, subject to the floodplain regulations ; and 10 . 356 acres of your property are mapped in the floodway and only available for non-structural development, subject to the floodplain regulations. - 3 - Parcel # XXXXXXXXXX 4of10 Poudre River Floodplain Map - Proposed Regulations Information a Q U N U. U. 0 4305 E Harmony Rd f z z -, � m m X -i Cl) D DM 0 m N N Cn CA 13 �2 Selected Parcel Boundary 0 50 100 High Flood Risk I I I I Regulation Option 1 - Current 0 . 5 foot Floodway Feet Proposed approximate 0 . 1 foot Floodway - Floodway if All floodplain boundaries are approximate. This map only shows Option 1 is adopted . the Poudre River floodplain and does not show floodplains from Flood Fringe basins other than the Poudre River. There is at least a 1 % annual chance these areas will be flooded . Property Address Moderate Flood Risk Parcel Number xxxxxxxxxx Areas of Poudre River 500-year Floodplain Parcel Area in Acres 15 . 1 Areas of 100-year Floodplain (sheet flow) with average Acres in 0 . 5 Foot Floodway 10 . 356 depths less than 1 foot. Additional Approximate Acres in the 0 . 1 Foot Floodway 1 . 685 Low Flood Risk Acres in Flood Fringe 2 . 581 Areas outside of mapped 100-year and 500-year Total Acres in 100-Year Floodplain 14 . 622 Floodplains. Local drainage problems may still exist. This information is based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ( FIRM ) and the City of Fort Collins Master Drainageway Plans . This letter does not imply that the referenced property will or will not be free from flooding or damage . A property not in the Special Flood Hazard Area or in a City Designated City Of Floodplain may be damaged by a flood greater than that predicted on the map or from a local drainage problem not Fort Collins shown on the map . This map does not create liability on the part of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, for any damage that results from reliance on this information . ` Utilities Prepared on 10/21 /2010 by GIs 5 of 10 Poudre River Floodplain Map - Proposed Regulations Information U. U. Q U N 0 4305 E Harmony Rd z � m m Cl)X -� cn D D M .� m m W N Ln 0 CA 13 .Q 0 50 100 I I I I Regulation Option 2 & 3 Selected Parcel Boundary Feet High Flood Risk All floodplain boundaries are approximate. This map only shows - Current 0 . 5 foot Floodway the Poudre River floodplain and does not show floodplains from Flood Fringe basins other than the Poudre River. There is at least a 1 % annual chance these areas will be flooded . Property Address Moderate Flood Risk Parcel Number XXXXXXXXXX Areas of Poudre River 500-year Floodplain Parcel Area in Acres 15 . 1 Areas of 100-year Floodplain (sheet flow) with average Acres in 0 . 5 Foot Floodway 10 . 356 depths less than 1 foot. Acres in Flood Fringe 4 .266 Low Flood Risk Total Acres in 100-Year Floodplain 14 . 622 Areas outside of mapped 100-year and 500-year Floodplains. Local drainage problems may still exist. This information is based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ( FIRM ) and the City of Fort Collins Master Drainageway Plans . This letter does not imply that the referenced property will or will not be free from flooding or damage . A property not in the Special Flood Hazard Area or in a City Designated City of Floodplain may be damaged by a flood greater than that predicted on the map or from a local drainage problem not Fort Collins shown on the map . This map does not create liability on the part of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, for any damage that results from reliance on this information . ` Utilities Prepared on 10/21 /2010 by GIs 6of10 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Review Frequently Asked Questions October 2010 Purpose of Review Q . Why are the floodplain regulations being reviewed? A. At City Council's request, Stormwater staff is attempting to reduce flood risk in the Poudre River basin. Further development in the floodplain results in increased risk to existing properties by increasing the flood elevation, changing the flow patterns and increasing velocities . By allowing more development in areas prone to flooding, additional people and property, including emergency response personnel, are at risk. Q . Why are only the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations being reviewed and not the other basins such as Spring Creek and Old Town? A. The Poudre River is the largest watershed in the city, and has the potential to generate the highest flows, deepest depths and highest velocities during a flood event. The Poudre Basin is different from the other basins because it cannot be modified with engineering solutions . The best way to prevent future flood losses is through appropriate floodplain regulation consistent with industry best practices and community values. Q . My property is not within city limits . Why am I being notified about these changes? A. Because some properties may annex into the city in the future, the City wanted to make all property owners aware of the proposed regulation changes . Causes of Flooding and Flood History Q . What causes flooding on the Poudre? A. Snowmelt, rain on snow, heavy rains resulting in flash flooding, or dam breaks can all cause flooding on the Poudre River. With snowmelt and rain on snow, the water may stay high for days or weeks at a time . Flash flooding may result with very little warning time. Q. Is there a history of flooding on the Poudre River? A. Yes . Fort Collins is located where it is today because Camp Collins, the original military post near LaPorte, was flooded in 1864 and relocated to higher ground. The 1904 flood was also a significant rainfall event that resulted in one death and significant property damage in Fort Collins . The 1904 flood was larger than a 100-year flood. See the attached flood history sheet for more information on past floods . 7of10 Q . How is flooding different here than in other parts of the country such as Iowa, Tennessee, Rhode Island, etc . ? A. Flooding in Fort Collins is not much different than flooding anywhere else. The main difference is we don ' t have "big river" flooding like on the Mississippi River. We actually have less warning than most communities due to the close proximity to the source (i. e . , mountain run-off) . When water hits an urban area and has nowhere to go, it finds the easiest path through or around buildings, over bridges jammed with debris, etc . The impact of flooding on property owners and the community is the same whether the flood happens in Colorado or on the east coast. Other Solutions Q . Why can ' t engineering solutions work on the Poudre? A. The Poudre River Master Plan studied and reviewed a wide variety of mitigation solutions including structural engineering approaches . Engineering solutions to mitigate Poudre River flood hazards are infeasible due to the high discharges associated with flooding in the river and environmental and regulatory constraints . Q . Won' t the Glade Reservoir - Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) reduce flooding by storing flood flows in its reservoir? A. No . NISP could reduce flooding somewhat in some situations but it would not likely help much during the 100-year flood. The NISP project is not proposed as a flood control project. It can only divert a maximum 1 ,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) using pumps and assuming an empty reservoir. The 100-year flood on the Poudre is approximately 13 ,000 cfs . Therefore, NISP would have a negligible impact during large floods on the Poudre River. Furthermore, over the long-tem, NISP would likely reduce channel capacity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation encroachment. This would result in the floodplain boundary being widened and additional people and property being at risk of flooding. Q . Can detention ponds be built on a property to capture the flood water? A. No . Detention ponds are used for slowing down the water that falls directly on the property from rain. Most sites would not be able to accommodate water flowing across the property from upstream flooding. 8of10 Risk and Property Damage Q . Is the risk of flooding on the Poudre River exaggerated? There has not been a major flood on the Poudre River since 1904 . A. No . The risk of flooding is based on long-term stream gauge data at the mouth of the Poudre Canyon. We don' t know when the next flood will happen or the severity, but based on flood maps, we know the areas that have the highest probability of being flooded. Q . Everyone talks about the " 100-year flood. " The risk is only a 1 % chance in any given year. Shouldn' t people be more worried about the risk of fire? A. Although a 1 % annual chance does not seem like very high odds, it is much higher than the risk of a fire . Over a 30-year mortgage, there is a 26% chance of being flooded if your property is in the 100-year floodplain. The risk of fire over that same time period is 5 % . Also, the 1 % risk is only at the edge of the floodplain. The closer a property is to the river channel, the higher the annual probability is of being flooded. Q . Doesn ' t flood insurance pay for damages and losses to buildings? Isn ' t it the business owner taking all the risk? A. Not completely. Flood insurance has very limited coverage. The value of many businesses exceeds the amount of flood insurance that can be purchased. In addition, flood insurance does not pay for business interruption. The entire community is impacted when services and jobs are lost due to a business not being able to recover from a flood. As federal taxpayers, we all pay for flood losses when a Presidential disaster is declared. Q . If residential structures are already prohibited and only non-residential structures are allowed in the floodplain, how is building more structures a life-safety risk? A. Non-residential structures still have people associated with them and these people will need to evacuate and may need to be rescued. Anytime rescues are involved, emergency response people are put at risk. Q . Don' t the current regulations account for displacement of water that would occur as part of a development? A. No . The floodway sets the amount of "allowable" rise in the I00-year flood elevation. As properties develop in the flood fringe and encroachments (buildings, fill, landscaping, curbs, etc .) take up space, the water has to go somewhere . The 100-year flood level will rise and impact nearby properties, both in and out of the floodplain, causing increased damages for neighbors . 9of10 Floodplain Mapping Q . Can the floodplain be modified through a FEMA map revision process? A. Yes . The floodplain can be modified and a hydraulic analysis can be submitted to FEMA as a Letter of Map Revision that can change the floodplain map. Q. If something is wrong with the map, can it be changed? A. Yes . If the floodplain mapping is incorrect for your property, it may be changed through a FEMA Letter of Map Amendment or a Letter of Map Revision. Q . If Option # 1 is chosen, why does the 0 . 1 foot floodway need to be remapped? A. The 0 . 1 foot floodway is an approximation and will be remapped if Option # 1 is selected. The floodway is based on older mapping and data (approximately 2007) and contains inaccuracies resulting from recent City projects, developments, map revisions and amendments that have taken place since 2007 . Q. Do the floodplain maps account for debris blocking the bridges? A. No . The floodplain models assume bridges are completely free of debris so floodplain maps do not reflect the impact of debris blockages . Debris blockage is highly likely. Material that comes from damaged structures will result in increased damages to other properties, both in and out of the floodplain, when the water can' t go through the bridges and backs up, raising the flood level and/or goes in different locations . Debris generation and blockage is of great concern to the City and another reason for the proposed floodplain regulation changes . 4 10 of 10 I l . • Stormwater ission Statement , The cit ' s integrated , sustainable stormwater management program shall reflect the community ' s values of protecting and restoring the Cit ' s watersheds , its tributaries and the Cache la Poudre Fiver for mutual economic , social and environmental benefits , including : * Econollg1C . flood damage reduction , increased recreation and tourism along stream corridors , reduced business interruptions • Social . public safety and welfare , reduced reed for emergency response , recreation opportunities promoting community wellness • Environmental . preserve natural and beneficial functions of fldplain , enhance storm water duality and preserve riparian habitant Flirt Coffins Utilities for the 2 Y ` Century. }� 2 Of 39 Stormwater Program Review. The stormwater program review in ludes several interdependent goals : • enhance citizen safety protect and restore watersheds and natural waterways to reduce tied damage • improve water quality • manage costs Fort Collins City Council and Water Board provide input as part of program review. Stormwater Program Review Areas . Stormwater purpose statement • Best management practices ( B 11P ) policy update • B1Ps for City-owned properties Stormwater criteria update * Detention pond construction and landscaping guidelines • Stormwater quality map coverage • Low - impact development ( LID ) policy • LID demonstration projects • Stormwater quality sampling • Homeowners ' association assistance program • Level of protection policy • Rate structure for storm water fees • Floodplain regulations • Urban stream health assessment Cnyof F6rt Colfins Utilities for the 2 Y � Century. � u 3 of 39 Purpose of Review Cache la Poudre River. • t City ouneil ' s request , Utilities Stormwater staff i attempting to reduce flood risk in the Poudre Firer basin . • Further development in the floodplain results in increased risk to existing properties by increasing the flood elevation , changing the flow patterns and increasing velocities . • By allowing more development in areas prone to flooding ; additional people and property, including emergency response personnel , are at risk . The only floodplain regulations being reviewed are for the Poudre Fiver because — The Poudre River is the largest watershed in the city, and has the potential to generate the highest flows , deepest depths and highest velocities during a flood event . — The Poudre Basin is different from other basins because it cannot be modified with engineering solutions . — The best war to prevent future flood losses is through appropriate floodplain regulation consistent with industry best practices and community values . Fir t Collins Utilities for the 2 1 Century. 4 of 39 Poudre River Basin About the Basin . • The Poudre Fiver is the Portions of the river corridor largest drainage corridor in contain old industrial sites , the city. reflecting a time when the river • The river receives runoff was seen as a convenient from the city " s local drainage means of carrying off waste basins ( Spring Creek , products . Bo elder Creek , etc . ) . The biological diversity , Floodplain restrictions have together with the sheer length limited the amount of building of mostly undeveloped lend , in the floodplain but there i combine to create a critical still significant flood risk . habitat of regional significance , • A high concentration of parrs and open space exist along the river corridor. Ir Y - r r - r �r . ' • r T City. of --art Collins Utili#i s for the 2 1 C entury. uh.,,� 5Of39 Floodplain Regulation Review Cache la Poudre River, Elements of Floodplain Administration . • Protect life -safety and property from the effects of flooding through proactive regulation , emergency response and long4errn planning • Encourage sustainable construction practices that reduce burdens on future generation • Deduce clean - up costs created by flood - damaged structures and property, rniniImi ing the volume of landfill wastes • Reduce communitywide disruptions of commerce , livelihood and services As part of the Stormwater repurposing effort , I-ty Council and Water Board have asked staff t sor it feedback on the following options ; 1 . Adopt a 0 . 1 foot rise floods . Prohibit structures in the 100 -year flood plain . No charge to the floodplain regulations l city of Flirt Collins Utilities for the 2 11 Century. � ut, 6of39 0 a Ah reserve Natural and Beneficial Fu.netions o the Flood l m . Y . - Floods provide many natural and beneficial functions. functions. • If the floodplain is Left open and free of buildings and obstructions , when a flood occurs , the water can spread out and slot a down and not cause damages , • Flooding also provides nutrient replenishment and promotes development of riparian habitat , • Fleodplains help protect and restore the physical , chemical and biologic integrity of the rivers - -- rt Co i Utilities for the I �' Century. �� ub, 7 of 39 Floodplain Regulations Main Purposes . P tect L e � a.f ty. Having additional people working and acquiring services in the floodplain results - in the possible need for evacuation and '�- rescue . This not only puts the employees r 4k and customers at risk but also the emergency response personnel performing rescue operations . Protect Fro erty. Protection of property is an issue not only for the new properties being proposed to be built , but for existing properties . By allowing fill and obstructions in the floodplain , the water is being diverted in different directions . Properties not currently in the floodplain may be damaged b water that is redirected at their property and may eventually be mapped into the floodplain . Additional fall and structures also cause increases in the flood elevations which results in additional damages to existing properties . ; - � - Debris generated by structures being damaged - or floatable materials being swept off-site can s cause increased damage to r downstream properties and often cause debris blockages at bridges . When bridges are blocked , the water cannot flaw through the bridge and thus backs- up increasing the flood level or the water finds a new flow path and floods properties that may not even he in the floodplain . FortCollins Utififies for the 2 1 Century. � ,hl;tie� 6 of 39 Creating History Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins . The location of the City of Fort Collins is where it is today because of flooding on the Poudre River- The first military post, Camp Collins , was originally =' estabilished near the present day town of LaPorte , It was destroyed in 1 M4 when T e Poud re River nwk flooded - Camp Collins was relocated to higher ground near present day Old Town in Fork Collins . There are several wellmdocumented large floods _ on the Poudre River around the tum of the century- A flood in 1891 was due to a darn break on Chambers Lake . The most notable flood was in 1904 - This storm was greater than a i DO-yea r event and resulted in the death of Fort Collins resident Robert Strauss . The Buckingham. Alta Darr,age was e &weuYtheAnder=ndb nwghbcMwd Vista and Andersonvi I le neighborhoods were (LefsyAvenue kx4mg rwoh to +roe 06m) areFrne A000 severely damaged by the 1904 flood . in f 90e- Ntjmerous other floods have occurred on the Poudre River over time , The chart below shows the highest flows on the Poudre River from 1864 to today, The most recent flooding on the PwdFe River was relatively minor and due to snowmelt in June 2010 - In the spring of 1999- minor flooding also occurred , _ caused by rain on snow during a warm ger+od in April_ The flood lasted only a few days . but resulted in a great deal of bank erosion and threatened many properties- Although the Poudre River has not flooded often in recent years- we know from the past that large on Jum 9, zare, the Poudre Rhw (ko" „arm ftm floods on the Poudre RiveF ci� n happen- Only the lemay Aaenae) had lbws of about 3,4W cubic fee► per future will tell how flooding on the Poudre River se mod fc%- Typk.4 & * fts kwabon is toacfa could change the history of Fort Collins again . Peak Msctwrges far the Cacho In Poudre Rhw (remrtletl gage rocand 19$� � per} � &a 00 _ Ia T -roc " Zr tea ' a 6 City of Fort Cottons Utilities for the 2 I Ft Century. ' �- utlliUes 9039 Causes of Flooding Cache e Poudre River in Fort Camse,s of flooding on the Flooding here LS stmilar to Poudre River. other parts of the country. nowmelt , rain on snow, heavy rains resulting Flooding in Fort Gollins is not much different in flash flooding , or darn breaks can all cause than floodiN anywhere else . The main difference flooding on the Poudre River, With sno melt is we don't have " big river* flooding like on the and rain on snow, the water may stay high for Mississippi River- We actually have less warming days or weeks at a tines- Flash flooding may than rrrost communities due to the close proximity result with very Ine warning time . to the source (mountain run-off) - When water hits an urban area and has nowhereHistory of floodlg on to go, it finds the easiest path through or around buildings , over bridges jammed with debris, etc- the Pbudre River. The impact of flooding on properly owners and the corn rnunity is the same whether the flood Fart Collins is located where it is today because happens in Goilorado or on the east coast - Garnp Gol" nS , the original military post near LaPorte . was flooded in 1864 and relocated to higher ground - The 1904 flood (photos below) also was a significant rainfail event that resulted in one death and significant property damage in Fort Collins- It was larger than a 10O�year flood - t - ip Upsbeam of Poudre River a1 Car?ege Avenue, 1904 hLa Mill race bao d hg east toward BuckrVham neighborhood, 1904 RaffiAoy brdge gpsbuam otLinden $beef, �. . t circa 1923 ak- ity of Linden Slmiet bridge looking ideas#. 104 Flirt Collins Uffities for the 2 1 ' Century. vtl 10GF39 Definitions 100� Year Floodplain ., I 00 � Year FlooC plaits The land that has a one percent ( 1 % ) chance or greater in any given year of being flooded F1oodwaNr W The portion of the 100- year floodplain with the greatest depths and velocities — the highest risk area floodway is defined in order to preserve a portion of the fleodplain to carry floodwaters without increa ing the water surface elevation more than a specified amount. Floodwater is still redirected to areas outside the flooday and may impact other properties , Flood Fringe The flood fringe usually has shallower depths and lower velocities . 100-year FlOo¢plain Flaad Fringe City Floodway Flaod F►vjW 6"ble rime • Fa Arta of flaadplain that is allowed to be filled [fief curet It r€gubGons) City of Fort Coll1n . Utilities for the 2 Y ' Century. ' u, 11 0139 Option 1 Adopt a 0 . 1 Foot Rise # • This option would expand the area being regulated as a floodway ( dark blue and yellow on Poudre Firer Flood Comparison Map , • Less area for development , More area for flood flows . • Floodplain modification is still allowed through map revision process ( FEMAI ity review ) . If Option # 1 is adopted , the tloodway delineation must be updated . As currently 1 shown , the 0 _ 1 foot tloodway , ` is considered approximate as ►E-7 FW Aftwo it is based on older mapping and data (2007 ) and contains inaccuracies resulting from recent City projects , development and map revisions .since 2007 . af Flirt Collins Utilities for the 2 1 � Century. ut, 12 of 39 r� • * JrliprorpMe Ftral • • MA 711 + lll7 � JILIYo Ifs ■ w poor 71 Fill MR r IS ' y �jp . LYE = � L. Mimi OR 1 _ , ! ■ —:, — �- ` 1h ramMin to =� F L1l1 of ,Y , . — _ I - Lam 7r M� , a , ± , NO + t,_ y ■ 4 ISO 14 � W7 — 1 wr +1 �k 1 APON ll mail 4 Am . -y • LEI } • arm Millimr- , 3. � i + - }J�' -• i ' *11, CFI � ��� ■ " ' izrc�r _ �fI * : I # F * = 41YIIF -_� - ilk- a � - :: 4 IL Sam i -- Ell — , Wr a oils _ INS Ion. . ■ a k MEN + ++ Icy '.� :_ -.: _ ' — � • : , I . _• ■lu: l � � , 1++• ` _ r \ Wild 401 T 1 -� � + � L =R1 = Ff 1 — f � t � k`tkF! iF ■ +� _ _ r rid 4L ♦ ww di A � i • ProhibitOption 2 AllFloodplain . f This option would change the regulations for the flood fringe . Floodpl in and floodwa r mapping would not change . • Current regulations prohibit residential and mixed - use structures . This option also would prohibit non - residential structures + Fl odplain modification is still allowed through a reap revision process ( FE 1Af ity review ) . �mh � Frame R&W a F*%r D 5 TL Rae F-6xkay r .r city of Flirt Collins Utilities for the 2 1 Century. � 4rJF39 Option 3 No Chan • e to the Regulations . • The floodplain and floodway would not change , Non-residential structures are allowed in the flood fringe . • Residential and mined - use structures are prohibited in the flood fringe . - �, Flood 'Lie dmmmmmmmlbFMP Friw err lira �� A O rf Rbkm RM06 X * Mak 91" RM l City of Fort C tlin Utilities for the 2 I Century, uti 65 �; 39 Other Regulatory Opfions . . . . . impact. proveUsing hydra UjIC modeling , property owners would be required to there impact 2 . No fill and no parking Others ?34 c i ,t •.- r - M , X ■ F6rt COW Utilities for the Z V Century. uh f Ens Property Impact Acreages Affected by Options 1 & 20 Current Regulations Option Option Ao MMYear Amin 4. , ' Adiditiio�fMal Acres in Total Acres in Acres in Fioodplain Floadway 0_1 -foot %odway 0, 14DO F7ood" Flood Fringe City Limits 38+0 42 245 178 Growth Managerneni 860 69 354 576 Area T i 1 1 598 753 ApproXimately two4hirds of the Poudre River 1000 year floodplain is owned by City of Fort CollinsNatural Areas and Pans and Recreation or the U Environmental Learning Center, F rt Collins [utilities for the 2 1 �t Century. Od� T of 39 The table below summanZeS changes a three options have on the indicates . i rions would become more restrictive , black text indicates current regulations - Flood Fringe nomod -FrinqA � Opkion 1 _ ` 1 Or 3j (Option not Mowed AyAedp mLd eWg* not + _+ StucWres in FbodFFmp and 1 F % 1erkiml — nol aNYAMINCrMck5miartadnot i ] I iDINfed. 1 : i or M A ' A = i it lil Resklef6wbWxe�jse Rw&ideflMand I : 1 4 ' P4md&r6K1 ' 1 RVIge eI i ! 1 aw F i ' . i eI 1 1 F T f � ! 1 'F! n� nal ZIIEWRd- es W 4 . AD Wed i 1 1 } 1 requffeaienls- A ' I ! D ' rl # Aimed- Mk3si show1i " { Allemea 1 ! I I PI 1 . mmulknid 1 + '1 + i i I / h f _ hl y i I i i F • i 1 _ / _ # � i aJbwed- exceWs 5^ of Me 07aftl vahiesbiximepriDr lu the ffyprmwpeof or damage F(Y fh& a r - Mst ovw- the life of f A R ! A e improvement occiffPs. t shAmum mml be ed oje floodpromled of F6rt Coth Utilities for the 2 1 Century. 1 r Similar Regulations in Other Communities , More estrletive noedway Criteria ( option 1 New Jersey 0 . 2 foot Illinois 0 . 1 font Indiana 0 . 1 foot Michigan 0 . 1 foot Minnesota 0 . 1 foot Wisconsin 0 . 1 foot No Structures mi the Flood lama (option 2 Arapahoe County, Colorado Centennial , Colorado of ort Collin Utilities for the 2 1st Century. 19 of 34 Current Regulations for • • [levelopmerrr Metliod Current F mdrr Riser Regul*tin I}.S Foot Flood%% Fkedvkmy arad Flaadplam Modification using AbDwod I&A oat spmific n*Lieemuts Hgdr efic Mudebap. and FEMA litter of .Mnp Revmon (LO1MR) FEMALNierofl4Etp Amend men I Ada.Rd �. (EOMWI r!i' W is FEMA Letter of 04sp Revision hared om FM (WML R-F) Nr Developigg is Noo,Residmkxd allowmri muse al vane of i Fkad Frinp 00F Build New Structures in Flood Fringe Rm:denualaedMunlLkc am &U&o L by FJ[►'aliDgurFluuJprautin Ake-Rcokolul aDowrdeausicktiairar pmf Additiud Iuitistin Slrur[urrsin lam= and M6rdntlsr onealloaL #luodFrivur Na� Rrsidmtisl aDo�rx m�assckw�tor Redr�:elupmrnt in Flood Fringe Romtkiru1 ad Mnzdd alkmedt. vwoll ekyme_ ( rebu-ild but not iocrrasr faalprmt) ? �� dnatror nmKo PWMI amd6l to 19th ing Sh iK izrss in AJI& aed - &uhuwlul P+aS„oene i Flood Fringe �equi�cmeois. Non-sngwt idDevelopmenIinFlood Aikmcd� e Fringe — parking tuts, 1niis, detenliom nd%, recreational aenenhim FII Flaanible llaterittls ,e *l Critical Facilities %W Aik..xd Fkadlway Build. NLw Structur-a in FkmAw#y biv Raa+daMa.a1_ Mr+.ed-� �.d �1an•ReadeaMy7 nd F. lirvalimlurFbudproofing allowad AdditionsI4ExistingStrocturrsis RcPdrmuLMue&uaeandNc"ccdmul ud nood-a'ar allnWed Rrdevekpmeni in Fluod*:Nv (rcharHd kmi&m64 Miiai..m wd NOO idoYldL am bul am intrtasr fuviprino V[I..red Remudel to EqkisNnR SIrufirures im Alkl.cd • Wam, 1vzclws mlod -MVnWaw�M ' Fkodwa} nllIllLlrnrnrc Non-stMccural Uev'e lop ment in Flood Alkmcd histSbawW-nsr Fringe — parking loin, "2ils. detembom p&6 recreational amenities, fill Feloalable Materimis WDt Mowed Critical Faeiliiier Not Alkwed Snbwwaw lmpco4t w 4cwCS 'rtlm ft bw or iaWmwwmL w kammK aFdzmaVc equKK or GSC=dS 0% Ul me muYa "jW 4f ik mynurc Prue a mr ugpr I or . For e6e r'mdre R,vu- ftw ran is rwmMu a ojar mt b* o[ a a r . Em lb! otber Ctiv Ind, xc m over a me ft� prod I[subsbmhol mzp 0=3� the mrbae oast be eks M &ndp -e3 City of Fart Collins Utilities for the 2 Is' Century. Utilities 20 of 39 Variances to Regulations . 1 . Variances are allowed . 2a Variances can take Into account mitigating circumstances and unique aspects of a project and / or location . 3 '. The applicant must show good and sufficient cause and theta variance would not harm others . . The ity 'sWater Board hears floodpl in variances . . The City is audited by the State and FEMA for the conditions upon which variances are granted . Floodplain VariwmAppiitation - , :FS Loin7l��erei 3ra+itlh•ww4iwi [time aanr lrr.waw _ -- Jdlop.. R6� [ q { �R�Ii��Frl�wfldwi - dpq�.apoFd k[n+dl+r ! fY arum n nW=Mfia nw*wwr�w J :dv - �[•y++���Y04der0al i�wr�d [f�i.ii� ndv nrti. Yeu�d .« Ta�ri.rari��.s.r #w•ntik�lld��aaat� [wra S•�weaaetYe�r pr��a� Srdra4+ bfimi iMMea" F=Ud Ob~ r i rA aIM ' �l�R�IPleva•�k - -_ ' AmIPw,�l#e'u'Af &=�I4 d45drQ*dgr~ �Pd hnftnth_ C4 of • � SSwT[v�kMrP[rlr�.`rred_ Flirt Collins Utilities for the Z I Century. ~� ,7I 21 of 39 Structural Solutions Frequently Asked id Questions . f V4lh can 't engmeenng solutions work on the Poudre? The Poudre River Master Plan studied and reviewed a wide variety of mitigation solutions including structural engineering approaches , Engineering solutions to mitigate Poudre River flood hazards are infeasible due to the high discharges associated with flooding in the ever and environmental and regulatory constraints . : all detention ponds be belt to capture flood water? Detention ponds are used for slowing down the water that falls directly on the property from rain _ Most sites would not be able to accommodate water flowing across the property from upstream flooding . Won't the Glade Reservoir 4 Northern Integrated Supply " ecl 1 I P reduce floc in. by storing flood floras ire its re.srvoir No . NISP could reduce evading somewhat in some situations but it would not likely help much during the 100 -}year flood . The NI P project is not proposed as a flood control project, It can only divert a maximum 1 , 00 cubic feet per second (cfs ) wing pumps and assuming an empty reservoir. The 100 -year flood on the Poudre is approximately 13 , 000 cfs , Therefore , NI P would have a negligible impact during large floods on the Poudre F lver_ Over the long -term , NI P would likely reduce channel capacity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation encroachment , This would result in the floodplain boundary being widened and additional people and property being at risk of flooding . Otyr of Fort Collins Utilities for the 2 1 Century. le� � 22 of 39 Floodplain Maps Methods to Revise . Two Pnn1 ry Methods for vis' Flood plain Map Map Amendment CITY OF FORT COLLINS FLOOD RISK MAP • Corrects mapping based on existing conditions , , I --^Y • Property owner provides survey work i f -- to show areas that should not be - - — mapped in the 100-year flood plain . �~ Based on comparison of ground elevations to the 10ayear flood — elevations . The fjoodway cannot be revised using this process , jr .T { • No fees for this process . f -awn- • FE fA mast approve changes , '- - y ' - Map Revision Al i n - } f A HydraulicModeling • Revises mapping based on = constructed changes , ; �^ ---- - � - -- • The hydraulic model is used to show how changes to the ground ( cut and fill , bridges , etc , ) change the floodplain mapping . • Many specific regulations and criteria must be met depending on the location of the work ( such as flood fringe versus floodway ) , • The flood ay can be revised using this process , • The public and affected property owners are notified of these changes and have the ability to appeal the mapping , • A registered engineer must stamp the report and revised mapping , • FEMA has a fee separate for this process — the ity' s fee i 00 , The City and FEMA must approve the modeling and mapping changes . City 0f Fort Collins Utilities for the 2 1 31 Century. �- uh, 23 of 39 Floodplain Mapping Frequently Asked Questions , Can the floodplain be modified though a FAA map revision process? Yes . The floodplain can be modified and a hydraulic analysis can be submitted to FEMA as a Letter of Map Revision that can change the floodplain reap . If Something is wrong, can the nmp be charged ? Yes . If the floodplain mapping is incorrect for your property, it may be changed through a FEIVIA Letter of Map Amendment or a Letter of Map Revision , If option # 1 is chosen, why does the 0 . 1 foot floodway reed to be remapped' The 0 . 1 foot floodway is an approximation and will be rernapp d if Option # 1 I s selected - The floodway is based on older mapping and data ( 007 ) and i contains inaccuracies resulting from recent City projectsT developments , map revisions and amendments that have taken place since 2007 . Leo the maps account for debris blocking the bridges? No . The floodplain models assume bridges are corn pletely free of debris so floodplain maps do not reflect the impact of debris blockages . Debris blockage is highly likely. Material that comes from damaged structures will result in increased damages to other properties , both in and out of the floodplain , when the water can `t go through the badges and --y: backs up , raising the flood level and/or goes in different locations . Debris generation and blockage is of great concern to the City _ ML and another reason for the - _ -. � ' '�'- _ proposed floodplain regulation _ changes . Poudre River raffroad frasSe opsfrearn of Cohege Avenue. city of A f - E6rt Collins Utilities for the 1 Century. � zass Community Rating System FEMA • City of Fort Collins. The Community Rating System ( ) is s voluntary incentive program through FEMA . • The CRS recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program . • 1 , 285 communities nationwide participate in the CRS . Fort Collins has a Class 4 CRS Rating and is one of the top nine communities nationwide • Benefit is discount on flood insurance premiums . Fort Collins residents and businesses receive up to a 0 % discount — 416 flood insurance policies in Fort Collins - $ 105 million of flood insurance in force in city — $ 265 , 000 in annual premiums — $ 56 , 300 annual discount corn munit - ride — $424 average annual discount in the FEMA 1 00 - rear floodplain — average annual discount outside the FEMA 1 0 - gear floodplain fort Collins Lit, 25 of 39 Community Rating System FEMA and City of • • CRS ratings are biased on activities undertaken b communities in the following categories : Public information ( Flood Awareness Week , mailers , website , etc . — Flood protection assistance — Floodplain mapping and flood data — Preservation of open space — Higher regulatory standards ( such as floodpl in regulations ) — tormwater regulations (for example , detention and water quality criteria ) — Acquisition and floodproofin — Hazard mitigation planning — Drainage system maintenance — Flood warning system — Levee and dam safety FEMA:!s CommKM Ra" 8ysimn (CRSI Came rabrz nr CRs Cise Y h�pP ii Cm 0 V% C� 9 7 f Gir • � a0 Cr ♦ iiz E am i M% XQ Chm } Za cam � alm 3 WK C� 2 Oft Gd 1 "S 70 r E } ■ 7 E i a i i { [4 • B+4 T= Sara 7 rik C15. '�S T: w4eI #Pe PMm' FJM*i�Ffar. :i "l City of Flirt Collins Utilities for the 2 X � Century. ut - 26 of 39 Stormwater Master Planning Philosophy. Elements of the Master Plan . • Recommended projects to reduce flood damage to tomes and businesses and reduce flooding of roads • Guidance for new development in the basin * Guidance for enhancements to the riparian habitat along stream corridors to improve water quality • Guidance for stabilizing streams where necessary We strive to design cost-effective projects that provide flood protection for a 100-gear rainfall event. Finding Solutions to Flood Damages—Basic Approaches . • Regulate and Respond . Enforce our existing floodplain regulations and development criteria . Utilize our floodarning system . No projects to reduce flood damages . Outcome : keep damages to current levels . • Buyout Properties in the Floodplain . Reduce damages by removing structures from the floodplain . • Evacuate the Water Faster. Build bigger channels and pipes to more water out faster and reduce the floodplain . Outcome : reduce flood damages . • Slow the Water Down . Build detention ponds to control water and slow it down so it fits into channels and pipes downstream . Outcome : reduce flood damages . • A Combination of Any or All of the Above. The recommended plan typically includes a combination of approaches . Fort Collins Utilities for the 2 1 � Century Poudre River' Basin Probfems Identified10 • The 2001 Master Plan identified approximately 3 , 160 acres of 100 - gear #loodplein between Taft Hill Road and l -2 . • Approximately 188 structures were identified in - f the Master Plan _ � - as being damaged in a 1 0 -gear flood . r • Damage to .z property, utilities P � and infrastructure caused by the _ `- 100 - gear flood was estimated to be - . 5 million in 2001 . ` - Y Additional damages - would be expected due to significant erasion along the = _ river corridor. y Additional damages _ would be expected due to debris - ; - blockage at bridges . City port Collins Utilities for the 2 1 t Century. za of 39 FAV • Multiple alternatives were evaluated for reducing or eliminating flood damage and for controlling erosion , including : ` T = y - structural improvements such as levees or channel improvements - floodplain regulations - - - #loodproofing - - - purchasing flood insurance - purchasing property Solutions were site specific and intended to reduce damage to existing structures only, fro solutions were identified to specifically reduce the floodplain on undeveloped land . • Due to the expense and environmental effects of building flood storage further upstream , a flood control dam is not a practical solution . The total cast of the projects ranged from $ 3 . 8 million to S31 , 3 million , depending on the specific solution chosen at each site , A reasonable estimate of the expected expenditures was approximately $ 15 million . The benefit- cost ratio varied from less than one to over five , depending on the project , City. of F&ICollins Utilities for the 2 Y Century. � U131 039 2001 Master Plan Completed Pro J ects . Several projects have been Oxbow Levee _ completed along the river, reducing Construction of the Oxbow Levee the number of structures at risk and (photo below) provides protection eliminating overtopping of roads to the Buckingham neighborhood . during a 100-gear flood even# . Over 56 acres of land were taken out of the 1 DD-year floodplain Prospect � Bridge andn . Bank Stabilization . anstruction of a new bridge eliminated overtopping of Prospect Road during a 100-year flood event . This project also reinforced the bank to prevent the river being captured by the l iverbend Ponds gravel pits . Ten acres of land were taken out of the 100-gear floodplain in the Countryside Estates neighborhood . Le ay Avenue Remappings The ffoodplain east of Lemay Avenue and north of Mulberry Street was reamapped by FEIVIA . Over 121 acres of land were taken out of the 100-gear floodplain . Timberline load Bridge . The Timberline load extension eliminated aspill over the right bank of the river. Over 105 acres of land were taken out of the 100 -gear floodplain . Cfty,F6r!C livin U ' 'ties for the 2 Y Century, Poo" - Ut 30 of 39 Watershed Approach Stormwater Quality . " it All Drains to The Pou lr . " Pollution P"reverition . • Minimize use of lawn chemicals • Deep cars in good repair ( no leaks ) Dispose of all wastes properly tormwater rl 'reatrnettf . Regulate erosion control at construction sites • Construct stormwater quality ponds Maintain water quality wetlands Habitat , • Evaluate stream habitats • Ensure assessment is a component of master plans Look for opportunities for protection and restoration Rain falls on landscape and Land Pollution Prevention , on fts way to the river. picks edurate people art ways to UP pollutant$ (Pesticides , eliminate or manage pollution . fertilizer, pet waste , cleaning Set regulations to prevent pollution agents, and oil or antifreeze from reaching our rivers . from leaking cars )- Water flows as runoff into resign tributary system to minimize the storm drains in the street, amount of pollutants reaching the stream and carrying poCutants from cars - build detention ponds and fertilizer. paint , outdoor wetland areas that allow pollutants eleaning agents , dirt. etc- to settle out before reaching the river- Pollutants affect water Actively restore and protect habftat quality and the wildlife that and consider the end result of our projects depend on it- Impervious on nature- surfaces cause water to run off faster, creating erosion that can damage Over ecology, Chy, of . s� F6. rt Coilln � Utilities for 1 e tur . , ,� utItbes 31 of 39 Flood Risk Information . 1 . Property in the 100 -year tloodplain has a 1 % chance or greater in any given year of being flooded . 2 _ Over a 0- year period , there is a 26 % chance that a property in the 100 -yea { floodplaln will be flooded - For comparison , there is only a % chance that the building wild catch fire during that same 0 -gear period . - Some properties have an even higher nsk of flooding because they are in areas where smaller, more frequent flood cause damage . Table of Odd, for Different Events . SbmcWre in therear floodplain being flooded in am gi+ren ym -. - -- pLsts Powerball in the Powerball Latiery - _ -- Structure in the 5WytLr1loadolaili na flooded in a i!le� car accident Iyou drive 10 . 000 miie; ear . 1 in 4mDQQ Be( st- - -tom+ - — - - -- pQ0 a Winning the Powerball Lottery jackpot (matching five numbers and the Powerball) 1 in 120,526,770 ( IC ity of Fort Collins Utilities for the 2 V# Ceiiftiry. 32 of 3g Risk and Property Damage Frequently Asked Questions . Doesn 't flood insurance pay for damages and los&w to building Isn't it the bust owner taking all the nsk Not completely. Flood insurance has very limited coverage . The value of many businesses exceeds the amount of flood insurance that can be purchased . In addition , flood insurance does not pair for business interruption . The entire community is impacted when services and jabs are lost due to a business not being able to recover from a flood . As federal taxpayers , we all pay for flood losses when a Presidential disaster is declared . Don ' t the Current regulations account for di pLwx ent of water that would occur as part of a development .? o . The floodway sets the amount of "allowable' rise in the 100-year — flood elevationr As properties develop in the flood fringe ri and encroachments l ( buildings , fill , - landscaping , curbs , _a -Law. , etc . ) take up space , the water has to go - somewhere . The ' 1 00 -gear flood level will rise and impact nearby properties , both in and out of the ffoodplain , causing increased damages for neighbors . of Fort Collins Utilities for the 2 1 Centtt y. `� 33 of 39 Risk and Property Damage Frequently q i Asked ed Questions . I the risk of flooding on the Poudre River exaggerated? There has not been a major flood o the Poudre liver sire 1904 . o . The risk of flooding is based on long -terra stream gauge data at the mouth of the Poudre Canyon . We don ' t know when the next flood will happen or the severity, but based on flood maps , we know the areas that have the highest probability of being flooded . Everyone talks about the " I 00 ; year flood . " The risk ILS oily a I oho chance m any V en year. Shouldn 't people be more worried about the risk of fire? Although a 1 % annual chance does not aesrorrrrt�a ,� oro�►drerr .ar� ass_ seem like very high odds , it is much higher than the risk of a fire _ Over a 0-gear mortgage , there is a 6 % chance of being flooded if your property is in the 100-gear #ioodplain , The risk of fire over that same time period is 5 % . Also , the I % risk is only at the edge of the floodplain . The closer a property is to the river channel , the higher the annual probability is of being flooded , If residential structures are already prohibited and ordy o � residential strucftwes are affovved Mi the floodplain, how is building more structures a life safety rV V Non- residentia ) structures still have people associated with them and these people will need to evacuate and may need to be rescued , Anytime rescues are involved , emergency response people are put at risk . City of Fort Coth [utilities for the 1 Century. `�- ulll 34of39 t LD Q as ax a� A #� 3 ea i 00 +17Llotcrs � Ls _ . .4kp[I m - _ .q — # : w LL afAncd e7 d Y C Cb aWrR;d e1 a RLD ONSL y a) O R 9 - Y + a � -0 �L # [ AMA 4 Wd iip�hldl � L w 0) Cc A13 $wA 3 � OaxwAmkjAd L q�ro11PLW 00*k, 11 VPJ 1 BPS I e } Z ipal saF3 pug p z w S + arc LL us O in :r LL co um // z o LO IP mm a a OU+B rn �rr _ — . w 8 - too � o aGa.a w41 ; — O 1 - 66 D�+9 - cn sr� s,.etly� ' 4 P1y1 } i f 4 iiFt Gy 'g ugh ALA ` L a '- 1, PauEa , j a}� � s +] I ' Y F N 1 I � F .. (1-4 aAJN) 13 do ' u> ,n ,n Ar °do- a si K ,Ipr : s iapOttZ # coftke ti m + C t 0 OWE s G7 ' : �� W n " t *° L 0 E �D 0 y+ ■� C i 2 2 EL ' 00jLqqLLI lu T PAMd ftki c o LLI W lear �e O + F �' essEsa, Fri uy Ada" {] m d FEul aJprpd E� 1 u#`$ U3 - E r Ir . r _ TOT ,1summ MAW - ALOWW ` ~ } W LY1 'SL_ 7 !l ar RE�d E L o CL IF - J • T t 4 T log 00*e Qvk �� i t W) LE} LID y� GO 41 4 Im 1 UA GAON) ua a12 r Poudre Fiver Flood Risk Cross Section E Mulberry t and Lemay Ave 50 Vw 0 5 Foot Floodway 100,YREfkK±wPIDoV&n Na¢ Sum on Feel R r 60 Crm Lk j Y y i w G Q C + + + + # + 12th St " } + f4l Nit W ,,rl . .- p - IA w y yy! r . = F WYR Effec fim 50-YR Effective � 100-YR Effective Wafer Surface Water Surface Water Surface Scale, Hotiz - 1 " = 50' 1 pert_ 1 "= ' Ground Profile -- 1996 Aerametric FEP A Flood Fmge 0. 5 Foot Floo'�way ;—� � �rt �f 6uni"g reghm era 2 VYSEL odbxs do nim �y J FA � AJ 4955 = 7 1 4 O Ix 955 2 z J p �- 1 11J a m + - U cx 4935 + ` 4935 LLI 4915 4915 V V V V Ib q Station ( Ft.) 4 r �t � EPev Von (NGVD Ft) +• '' � 'ysh{; u ,r CD 0 L ' a -F Q a+o jrMill pmapsc ' . p� �y Nd 1 ? f 4; Pg r � * 0 La n a ll - . 3 m _ _ 'lf r IRI ` RE � - - a m = 4 `r (p m S : G'. 16 MM 3 r D rw re s 0 fit 13 C) i Pond m F' ' o . rk - ate T4 k J "00 - .. ri 00 + 2 IkI f~ • - ' IY (D lar Mn T L T mn Ik sa }ulod d1loqs 40 + 4 o yD a� $ 49 14 CL CD r+ fi CL LL * _ . . CL Pond ,QDmn CP 0 � — log O ycfyo rn ' m ' n Cadre la - x P&J&D WOW i ED MINOO n ; 41 ka W 8 g 0 1A Historic Channel Changes and Past Development Along the Poudre River - J • _ . • •1937 a ? if- � w ' 1 t, � •1e• e - • ey Page 39 . Summary of Frequent • Comment Theme from Open House Frequency This adversely impacts businesses . 26 The regulations are OK the way they are currently. There is a lot of money being spent on this effort by the City. Seems wasteful . 14 Seems like over regulation by the City. Support for increased floodplain regulations . 11 This seems like a taking or condemnation . Compensation is needed for affected businesses . The risk is felt to be low. 9 Support for most strict option of no structures in the floodplain . 7 The Poudre River should be allowed to run naturally. 6 A lot of community and City effort has gone into the North College area . These regulations would negate all the money and 5 effort already spent . Don 't allow property owners to flood or impact property owned by others . ( No Adverse Impact) . 4 Fort Collins is already more restrictive than most communities . 4 Public Safety should be of highest priority. Building in the floodplain is dangerous . 4 D D C� 2 m z 0 cn Poudre River Floodplain Regulations PublicI Open House • • 2010 Category Affected Comments: Economic An economic disaster. Furthermore , a gross overstepping of the bounds of government. Waste of taxpayers money on an issue already thoroughly vetted . Neil McCaffrey Economic Anything that destroys business potential as land value on river properties should be avoided . The status-quo has served . Economic As a property owner within the floodplain I am very concerned about the adverse economic impact on my property if the floodplain map is modified . It seems like a condemnation of our property and something that will have serious adverse impacts on us . It sounds as if we would need to spend money on engineers just to find out and defend the status quo . - Richard Oneslager Economic Basically, per your options - no residential or mixed use building - period . A - it appears that you can make our properties worthless as to the fact that lenders would not make loans on our properties and houses . B . - How do you intend to compensate us for taking away our rights to build or to obtain loans . 2 . Looking at your chart, the flow has not exceeded the 100 year discharge in the last 100 years and only 4 times was more than 50% of the 13, 330 cfs ( 100 year discharge) . Don't you feel you are extreme? 3 . We live outside the City limits . Because of the GMA can you do this to our property without representation? - Gary Olsen Economic Don't waste time and money on this . Too small a chance of flood . Current standards are sufficient. - Bonnie Zidorn Economic I am not sure why we need to have the strictest floodplain regulations in the nation . Health safety and welfare are important safeguards but they must be balanced and fair to property owners who purchased properties prior to these restrictions . - Scott Woops Economic I am shocked at the magnitude of the effort that must have gone into this presentation . This reeks of $ . How much was spent on this in charts and graphics . It screams this is the way we are moving forward . This is not an open venue for discussion . It is we are doing this and that is it! Economic I cannot believe that our City would spend so much time and money to develop a plan to successfully develop a North College Business plan , create URA districts, promote growth and then wash all those plans and opportunities away by trying to implement a new floodplain plan . Save our money and leave things as they are . Economic I feel that the current floodplain adequately addresses the Poudre River. I don't understand why the City staff and Council are spending valuable time and important tax dollars to look at an area that does NOT need attention . Historic data suggests that we are protected . As a City we should address more important issues and support the business community. Economic If the City won 't compensate property owners for their loss of value with more stringent regulations they should not proceed with this change . Economic If the floodplain is changed as recommended by staff and the Water Board , this equates to eminent domain with no compensation . Further, monies spent by the City in years past to develop corridor plans , to mitigate the Dry Creek floodplain , etc . . . will be largely waste. The City would then have to redo all of the plans for North Fort Collins and the URA. Financial models would have to be re-done . Property and business owners would most certainly be forced out of business or pushed to bankruptcy in the coming years, or they would lose their investment/retirement. Page 1 of 6 2of7 Poudre River FloodplainRegulations CommentsPublic Open House Novemb - 2010 Categoty Affected Comments: Economic If you pass this new regulation , you will be stealing $3 ,000, 000 from my family. That is three million dollars . We don't like this . It will be very bad for us . You should have built your bridges strong enough in the first place . - David Hoffman Economic Is there compensation for taking our rights to build on our property. Economic It appears that there are only two options presented today. I would recommend what was the 3rd option : No action . Our regulations are already the most strict in the state. And we've already spent way too many dollars in many City departments studying this issues . Make no changes . Economic It seems that The City bends or changes the rules for those in favored positions . New Belgium , In Situ , the development north of Vine off Linden , all fill in lots of dirt to raise ground level out of the floodplain , while others are prohibited . - Tim Jackson Economic Just how much money did this event cost? Who is paying for a speaker? Beg for a tax hike then waste money like this . - Heather Walhart Economic No new development in the 100 year floodplain . The question is "present taking" for current landowners versus "future taking" from societal mitigation of flood and flood relief. The City has no obligation to provide services in the 100 year floodplain for new development. Any structures - lost in the flood shall not be replaced except for road crossings and bridges, sewage treatment plants . Do a "strategic retreat" from floodplain as all infrastructure has a finite lifetime - when it is time to replace - move out of floodplain if at all possible. 30-50 years . The City should not provide any new services in the 100 year floodplain - no utilities. - Tim Johnson Economic Please remap before making decisions that will effect private property values . Leave the present regulation the way it is . Economic Risk and property damage FAQs. If residential is not allowed do you think the non-residential owners will not take preventative action to protect their staff, supposedly Fort Collins has sophisticated warning system in place! Economic Seeing that FEMA is and has been the national standard setting entity that all municipalities have followed in setting their flood regulations, why would Fort Collins adopt a new regulation that is 10 times more restrictive from a measurement calculation? Secondly, do you think it prudent to expose the City to a possible class action damages suit from the City's indirect taking of their property rights? Craig Haw Economic Since the current regulation we adopted in 2007 it seems irresponsibly premature to consider changing them again . Especially since the City has recently invested tens of millions of dollars in the North College Corridor that would be adversely affected by the proposed changes . Economic The City brought a person in who is obviously for making the change of floodplain , with no one to present the opposing side. It's obvious what the City wants to do, so why are we spending all of this money to prove their case? This man uses derogatory terms and falsehoods to make his case . "McMansions" "fact instead of opinions" . When will we see someone representing the other side? Don't tell me that public safety requires this , 1 death in 146 years . Page 2 of 6 3of7 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations PublicI Open House • • 2010 Category Affected Comments: Economic The City is over the top this time . No money in the City's coffers, yet you have the unmitigated gall to spend an enormous sum to thwart the publics will . It will only lead to a costly legal battle. Regulations over and above FEMA's are uncalled for. This is yet another attempt by the anti-business majority of the council to push their agenda and they will be stopped . - Charles Mesrtlian Economic The current floodplain protects land and property adequately and was just reviewed by the City in 2007. It does not need to be changed in such a short time . This is unfair to property owners and people who purchased property since 2007 . - David Wasson Economic The project is an overkill . Economic There is sufficient regulation in place . There is no need for additional regulation . Economic This is a solution in search of a problem . We already have the highest requirements in the nation . It is inappropriate for us to limit these property owners rights when there is no science to support the changes . Don't do this ! Economic Too rigorous changes - very little respect for property rights . Overstates risk - ill defined issues . Too much government bureaucracy creating more work for themselves. Economic We are very satisfied with the present situation . We do not plan on building any structures . But moving of our material would seriously impact our property. Economic We must stop development in the Poudre River floodplain for the safety of the public. The entire City population pays higher stormwater fees to implement flood control measures to keep everyone in Fort Collins safe . We pay every month to keep all citizens safe from floods . This is a shared cost to keep all citizens safe from floods . Public safety requires shared costs and shared sacrifice. - Scott Mason Economic We presently have strict enough regulations as it is . Why would council want to go in reverse to undo all of the positive movement in the URA area . We are negatively affecting humans that own property in this floodplain area . There is no way that any changes should be made . Economic We should move toward prohibiting new development in the 100-year floodplain , or at least find a way to compensate property owners for potential damage caused by development inside the floodway. Economic What did it cost to do the survey and determine the 0 . 1 ft floodway? Economic What has this project cost the City in dollars? This project is a overkill . Economic Why doesn 't the City leave everyone alone . They change the rules frequently. This subject should be between the property owners and their insurance companies. Economic Why is the City raising this issue now? Our government just reached out to the taxpayers with a tax initiative that said the city did not have enough money to maintain current services . Changing the floodplain will take money away from the City and will cost money to implement. Let FEMA regulations guide without current regulations from the City. Too much government chokes businesses to death . Economic Won 't be able to get loans on our properties . Page 3 of 6 4of7 Poudre River FloodplainRegulations CommentsPublic Open House Novemb - 2010 Categoty Affected Comments: Environmental Can the City provide a detailed cost/benefit analysis of mitigation alternatives other than simply changing the flood risk standard? Environmental Has the Stormwater Utility determined the specific population at risk (i .e . the number of people) with the current regulations vs . the proposed regulations? Do we know the dollar impact of changing the regulations? Environmental How does the City propose to control for changes upstream from the City limits which will effect flood patterns within the City limits . Shouldn't basin wide standards be implemented instead? Environmental In a discussion about changes to Poudre River floodplain . (dishonest) certainly misleading to post pictures of 1997 Spring Creek Flood . How about improvements/structures to reduce floodplain not expand areas improve areas . Environmental Protecting the floodplain protects the river, the taxpayer, and property owners . This is a great educational effort by the City Staff. - Gary Wockner Environmental We have already developed too much of the Poudre River floodplain . We need to stop developing the floodplain to allow the increased flows in the river to spread naturally to reduce damage downstream . - Scott Mason Environmental We simply must respect and protect the Poudre River. Allowing new structures in the floodplain directly impacts the river and adjacent/nearby/downstream property owners . It is not fair to those other property owners to allow development in the floodplain . Give the river room , respect its power to destroy as well as renew and we will all be better off. - Mark Easter Environmental Will this create multiple brown fields . . . i . e . when existing properties in floodplain deteriorate to the point of need "substantial improvement" , perhaps condemned , what would be the impact to the City? Social I have yet to see the cost/benefit analysis presented that even begins to quantify the negative impact to which the community, it's businesses or it's people are at risk. Comparison's to national disasters across the country simply do not hold water (pun intended ) . - Matthew Hoeven Social Our current regulations protect life adequately. By increasing the floodplain jobs will be lost. This is not the time to over-regulate ! Many people are unemployed , and I know dozens of businesses whose property value would drop to near nothing . Social Staff has mentioned in several presentations that "if even one life is saved" the recommended changes are worth it. If we use this analogy, then we should not allow any development in any floodways in Fort Collins including areas that could be flooded if the dams at Horsetooth should fail . Further, if the city implements the recommended changes, then to be 100% sure to eliminate the change of lives being lost, all current structures, all trees, anything in the floodway, should be removed . So that nothing would be swept down the river should a 100 year flood occur. Greg Woods Social There is a point at which the government needs to draw a line on unnecessary regulation . This is yet another example . Social Very very dangerous to job growth in Fort Collins . That in turn has a negative impact on schools , on family life . Page 4 of 6 5of7 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations PublicI Open House • • 2010 Category Affected Comments: Social We already have the most stringent ( FEMA) floodplain regulations in the state , why do we need more . I view this as a direct violation of property rights , and development obstruction . The City should spend time on economic development, not pushing it downstream . - Chris Guillan Social We have to stop all development in the Poudre River floodplain . It is dangerous and a legal liability to allow development to put other land owners and users at risk. - Scott Mason Social When did the Army CORP of Engineers straighten the river? Based on the graph , it looks like the flood or high water levels have been lower since then . Is any kind of change needed? Economic/ Brian Janonis issued a public statement in July 2009 to the effect that Fort Collins has more Social restrictive floodplain regulations than 95% of the state. In these uncertain economic times , why is the City wasting money on trying to be the most restricted? The floodplain regulations should remain as they are to avoid what essentially will result in a "taking" from our property owning citizens . Economic/ I understand and appreciate to protect property and life in case of floods. However, this proposal Social appears to go beyond a reasonable level of risk. In addition this will severely and negatively affect all the positive steps that have taken place along North College Avenue . I would like to see The City work with the three primarily affected areas ( North College, Mulberry, and Lincoln Greens) and figure a way development can continue in these areas and implement the more restrictive regulations in the rest of the corridor. The property owners along North College are small business and property owners , their ability to develop and pay for plans to move forward with a variance is extremely unlikely. There has to be a way to enable these few areas to develop and prosper without going through and arduous variance process . Please consider that as you formalize the actions that will change the current regulations . Economic/ It is always a balance between risk and benefit. Leave the area alone . Current regulations are Social adequate - more regulations from areas in the US that are frequently flooded do not apply to a semiarid climate - the financial costs to North College and Fort Collins is greater by implementing new regulations . Economic/ Should these proposed regulations be approved , the economic impact to the City, citizens , DDA, Social DBA and County will be devastating . In these uncertain economic times this would be extremely short sighted . The floodplain regulations need to stay as they are. Economic/ The definition of safety - how safe is safe - these proposed regulations of 0 . 1 are very restrictive and Social unrealistic for safety purposes . This definitely has a negative impact on economic development. Why pursue this 0 . 1 when it will impact potential economic improvement. - Tom Frazier Economic/ The water board approved the proposed changes without any sort of economic impact analysis Social whatsoever. This is unacceptable. Where is due process? To make this sort of recommendation on insufficient information is reckless and irresponsible . Especially in a down economy. Economic/ This is an illegal taking of land by regulations . If you want this as open space , quit buying land in Social Wyoming and use the money here to pay fair market value for properties you want to protect. The life safety argument is a smokescreen , Poudre has not had serious flood damage in decades . - Dave Murcy Page 5 of 6 6of7 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Public I Open House • • 2010 Category Affected Comments: Economic/ How much money was spent on the printed materials for this event? It doesn't seem to be very green Environmental/ or fiscally responsible to print so many oversized glossy items for the limited use . I believe the Social utilities department is spending unneeded money on an agenda of a few extreme environmentalists . The speaker added no value what so ever. Economic/ I am for regulations that let rivers run their course - protect floodway and floodplain and move people Environmental/ out of those areas where possible . Just want to express my support for stricter regulations in the Social face of all the hostility I 'm hearing tonight. Where you can , get people out of sensitive areas . Economic/ I support the option of no building in the 100 year floodplain . This protects the life safety, health , Environmental/ economic future and environment for all . It also preserves the river for the future . We have no right Social to compromise the Poudre River now by over developing in the floodplain and destroying the river for the future. Economic/ I would not like to see any options preclude promoting the downtown section of the Poudre from Environmental/ having some development such as performing arts (theatre, music venue) , restaurants and Social connecting walkways . Let's get people in the town to really appreciate this wonderful resource . This will be good for the economy and for our social community cohesiveness . I do not think we should allow fill in the 0 . 1 , 0 . 5 or 100 year floodplain . This looks like what was done in the 60s and 70s by Army Corps of Engineers to channelize rivers . This seems to worsen affects of floods. Can we have construction design criteria of buildings built on stilt structures so water could pass through if a flood occurs? - Karen Roth Economic/ In striking "balance" between public safety and economic vitality, public safety must have Environmental/ overwhelming priority. The current allowance for 0 . 5' rise is too liberal and risks public safety. The Social 0 . 1 ' rise option is better but still compromises safety. The only truly defensible option is #2 which would assure no compromise of safety going forward . No Adverse Impact ( NAI ) has promise in the future but will take years to design and implement. - Greg Speer Economic/ The pretence of the subject is disingenuous in the presented form . The options presented have only Environmental/ cursory health and safety benefits. This has been designed as a public taking of what little remains Social of private property in the corridor. In the absence of accurate mapping , consideration of cost-benefit analysis is problematic though no economic or opportunity costs are even presented . Economic/ The rules keep changing . Leave everything alone and quit wasting taxpayer money on this . - Tim Environmental/ Jackson Social Economic/ These are over reaching and unnecessary. We have strong regulations now and changes made now Environmental/ affect property owners in a negative manner. Strongly Oppose . Social Economic/ This seems to be an overreach to limit potential infill and redevelopment along the Poudre River Environmental/ corridor. I believe the safety risks are being overstated to promote a no growth environment at all Social costs mentality. I can't believe that the City would go so far to limit the development potential along North College . Environmental/ If this was really a life safety issue you would apply it to all 10 floodplains in the City. It feels like an Social attempt to expand natural areas without paying for them . If that is the case , then just do that and leave the economic base alone! I see no data based decision making here - way below Fort Collins standards ! Page 6 of 6 7of7 ATTACHMENT 6 PublicPoudre River Floodplain Regulations • Community • and Individual Comments Category Comments: Affected Economic If you look at the properties affected by the recommended alternative , there are really only three areas of the corridor that have any development opportunities . They are; the North College Avenue area (which the City spent millions of dollars improving the Dry Creek Drainage Channel so it could be opened for more development) , the Lincoln Greens property, and the Mulberry corridor. I would like to see an option that looks at possible development options and opportunities in those three areas of the channel and allow the recommended alternative (no development in the floodplain ) implemented in the rest of the channel . If I ' m mistaken , and there are other major developable parcels around 1-25 and Harmony (or elsewhere) I would like those to be included with the three aforementioned areas . -Mike Bello Economic I would vote for option 3 - leave things alone . - Mark Bradely Economic The proposed changes . . . appear to have a significant negative effect on our property. Based on the maps that your letter included , and our discussions , two of the three proposed options will render our property undevelopable . The only option that does not sterilize our property is the option to leave the existing regulations in effect. In 2008, the State Land Board undertook extensive work to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill for this site, with the intention to move forward with annexation , zoning and redevelopment of the property in Fort Collins . Should the proposed changes take effect universally, it is my understanding that the City will no longer recognize this approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or would require that the State go through additional , more rigorous and much more expensive studies to obtain additional Federal approval (a CLOMR and LOMR). These proposed changes, applied universally, will take all future economic use of the property from the School Trust. We would like to encourage the City to review properties such as ours on a case by case basis as we cannot support these revisions as they stand today. - Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners Economic Residential development is not currently permitted within the flood fringe . Commercial development faces significant challenges , perhaps less from a regulatory standpoint than economic impediment and political perspective . All proposed options but status quo seek a de facto transfer of property rights to public purpose. i .e . trails , parks and open space would be permitted ; any structure with two or more sides would not. So now my personal property is swallowed up along with my tax dollars to support open space objectives, which diminishes my capacity to generate the sales tax revenues utilized to legally purchase property rights? Somehow I feel as though we are trapped within an economic model devised by M . C . Eicher. social The City currently boasts one of the highest ratings for storm water management and the lowest rates for flood insurance in the country. Further augmentation of standards would challenge the voracity of scientific modeling as unquantifiable variants would produce greater impact than marginal refinements to prevailing code . In other words, the City can work towards a mandate to remove of all structures and public access within the floodplain , but a dislodged cottonwood would pose a greater danger to public safety than a brain-dead motorist. The very nature of hydrological engineering assumes a `fudge factor' attributed to unforeseen conditions that is greater than the likelihood of known perils once a community achieves a safety threshold currently enjoyed by City of Fort Collins . Shouldn't we consider the elimination of all trees along the corridor if we' re going to prohibit storage sheds? This issue is clearly not driven by any health or safety concerns . Were that the case , drainages that host residential development would be first on the list for more stringent control standards. This exercise is driven by a political agenda to prevent future commercial development along a corridor that possesses tremendous potential to grow the local economic base . We all recognize the drainage basin of the CLP is significantly larger than all others within the city, but we also know the basin has far greater capacity to absorb and diminish the impacts of high flow events that might otherwise threaten loss of life and property. - Joe Rowan Page 1 of 3 1 of 13 Poudre River Flood plain 1 1 Public Comments Community • and Individual Comments Category Affected mmmil social Strongly recommend option 2 (no structures in floodplain ) . Society can not afford the costs associated with damage that will inevitably be caused by option 1 (0 . 1ft allowable rise ) or option 3 (no change in regulations, 0 .5ft allowable rise) . To preserve the economic, social (recreation and safety) and environmental values of the floodway, option 1 or 3 can not be allowed to proceed . - John Giordanengo Economic This appears to be over regulation by City Government. We are already 100% double FEMA regulations why should we be 10 times . Private property owners should be compensated . The hidden agenda here is regulated open space and it is a taking . -Craig Haw Economic Loss of sales tax revenues , as no new development with retail aspects . Loss of property tax revenues to County. Have you asked their opinions on this? Will drop property values , as per Commercial Realtors and appraisers , by approximately 50% for properties not at their highest and best uses . - Sean Dougherty Economic Severe economic impact lower revenue and tax base lower employment negatively affects many property owners and business owners. Long term impacts of flooding are vastly overblown and exaggerated . Frequency of flooding is very low. This is an expensive costly solution in search of a real problem . Economic Efforts and investment does not justify the reduction in risk; big waste of time and tax payers dollars. Private property rights ignored ; property devaluation potential unjustified . Long term economic impact is negative and could jeopardize future tax dollars to the city, not to mention redevelopment/development that may occur that could potentially enhance the social , environmental and economic well-being of our City's future . - J . Crawmer social Concerned that public utilities will be hampered from future expenses (sewer plants) impacting our ability to treat wastewater. Should be based on demonstrated site specific study. - Steve Kawulok Economic Property rights and values are subject to degradation of value. The resulting lawsuit will be costly to the City. Over riding FEMAi and State floodplain regulations is an unnecessary burden on properties only solidifies the publics perception that this town is run by a bunch of do gooder-anti growth-anti business-elitists . - Charlie Meserlian social 1 % risk is not enough for this level of regulation. This is causing a disconnect between old town and North College . - Peter Kast Economic Restricting development. Taking of land without compensation . Use open space money to take this land . Use open space money allows the community to share in the loss or cost of this action . Economic Supports delayed implementation of increased regulations . - Ed Zdenek Economic Understand about not wanting to have water pushed off on other properties . However, as an investor, he feels the regulations are a condemnation . - L and M Enterprises LLC Economic Concerned about what this is going to do to others. In the past, have had a bad experience with City buying out a property in Old Town and offering low value . - James Wade Economic May want to sell property in future and therefore do not want property to be devalued by further floodplain regulations. Does not want development to be stopped completely. Karen Livingston Economic Concerned about Council adopting 0. 1 ft floodway when mapping not updated . - Kim Zidon Page 2 of 3 2of13 Poudre FloodplainRegulations CommunityPublic Comments • and IndividualComments Category Affected Economic Concerned about either option 1 or 2 , because it would have a significant negative impact on their property. - State Board of Land Commissioners Would like no changes to the regulations . - Dixie Gibbens Economic I vote emphatically for option #3 . 1 am sick and tired of the 4 no-growthers on this city council finding any way they can to stop development and growth in Fort Collins . They don't care what individuals or businesses suffer or if they go out of business because of their actions . How do they think we got where we are today? - David Austin Economic Do you know if any Cities similar to ours (such as Pueblo or Steamboat Springs) have data documenting the economic impact of a well-designed urban river corridor? -Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo ( HARP), http://www. puebloharp .com/ -River Walk, Steamboat Springs , http ://www.steamboatunbridled .com/townAndValleyProjects.aspx . The Poudre River between the new Discovery Science Museum and Lemay is not " natural , " and will never be restored as such . It's time to stop pretending and hiding behind environmental issues ; and most recently, flood safety scare tactics . The stretches of the Poudre further west, or east near Timberline and Prospect Ponds have been well protected and preserved as a great open space community asset. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think the downtown reach should be treated similarly. Furthermore , we are losing a tremendously opportunity if we prohibit creative development along the Poudre River in the name of riparian stewardship and public safety. . . what a fallacy? ! Other cities that have created successful river walks have overcome the same engineering challenges and federal requirements ( FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers , etc. ) . . . the only difference is that they had the political moxie to make it happen . Not only could this be a remarkable economic and cultural boon for Fort Collins, but an active and engaged river corridor through downtown could actually boost environmental stewardship as well . As it stands , the Poudre River near Old Town is the " back-of-house" to aged industrial lots and other businesses . This neglected stream is too often ignored or even unknown to many citizens and visitors . Once the masses realize what a great resource we have through their impressive downtown river experience , they will likely become advocates for the greater Poudre River. I appreciate the work your department has done thus far to ensure a balanced picture is presented to City Council . - Nick Haws, PE , Northern Engineering Save the Poudre (See attached letter) Water Board Chairperson , Gina Janett (See attached letter) Natural Resources Advisory Board (See attached letter) Page 3 of 3 3 of 13 Poudre River Floodplain • • Property Date of meeting Issues Discussed 11 /2/10 HANNA, JOHN H : He is in the County and plans to sell property. New owner is expected to do residential . He has spoken with Ed Woodward at the County about County regulations and possible variances to freeboard requirements . We explained reason for notification from City was related to possible future annexation . I explained that 0 . 1 ft floodway mapping was not done in this area , and would be redone if Option # 1 is the option picked by Council . He would have liked more detailed information to be included about the basis for the flows (gage at month of canyon ), how the hydraulic models work and specific elevations on his property. He had no specific comments on the proposed regulation changes . 8/30/10 Ed Zdenek 9/9/ 10 Neenean — Advanced Energy property 10/6/10 Old Town North 11 /8/ 10 ARNETT, ROBERT W : MHR and SDH - Spoke with Stan Arnett (grandson ) about the proposed regulations . Explained that County regulations are what guide them for current development. We were informing them in case they were annexed in the future . Explained that 0 . 1 ft floodway was not shown on their map because 0 . 1 foot needs to be updated . SDH also discussed West Vine floodplain and Master Plan outfall that needs to come through this property in the future (5 years or more out) . City will work with property owner on location of outfall channel . 11 /9/10 LIVINGSTON , KARIN A: We discussed the regulation options , variances , map amendments and revisions . Discussed the Shields bridge reconstruction . Property is currently a horse stable in the County. However, she may want to sell in future and therefore does not want property to be devalued by further floodplain regulations . She does not want development to be stopped completely and therefore she does not like Option #2 . She feels it is important to achieve a balance between property owner rights and rights of the community. She felt the City did a good job of informing property owners of the issue and appreciates the communication . 11 /22/10 FORT COLLINS RETAIL NURSERY INC : MHR - Met with Gary Eastman and Jesse Eastman . Discussed the property and City regulation options . Currently in the County. Discussed remodels and ways to protect hoop houses from floating downstream . 11 /23/10 LINK-N -GREENS , INC : Meeting with future developers of Link-N-Greens Site . Those present at the meeting were Allen Ginsborg , Rich Shannon , Brad Anderson , Bruce Hendee , Marsha Hilmes Robinson , Ken Sampley, Jon Haukaas , Brian Varrella . The following were discussed : floodplain mapping , ways to change the map - LOMA, LOMR with hydraulic modeling , FEMA process , possible need to go to County Flood Review Board is modeling extends into county as part of LOMR, variances , importance of protecting buildings in 500-year floodplain even if not required to elevate , filling in floodplain pushes water off on someone else , approval process for permits and LOMRs , current regulations , proposed regulations under Option 1 and Option 2 . Page 1 of 2 4 of 13 Poudre River Floodplain • I Property Owner Meetings Date of meeting Issues Discussed 11 /29/10 INSITU INC : MHR met with Chris McKee and Craig from InSitu about their future addition . The future addition was shown on the original development plans . It was shown to be in the 100- year flood fringe but out of the 0 . 1 foot floodway. They are not concerned about option #1 because their building would be out of the 0 . 1 ft flooday. They are concerned about option #2 . They feel this was negotiated when they moved the company to Fort Collins in 2003 so the future expansion should be allowed . They understood about not impacting their neighbor. We discussed other options they may have if Option #2 were adopted : 1 . Change the addition footprint to be out of the 100-year floodplain ; 2 . Do hydraulic modeling to show how some of the work they have already done have created more capacity and therefore the floodplain line could be adjusted through a LOMR and thus allow the addition to be constructed . They plan to voice their concerns . Their main priority is allowin g future construction of the addition . 12/6/ 10 BIRCHETTE , CARLEEN M/MICHAEL D : MHR met with Mike Birchette . Discussed that this property is currently in the County and these changes would only be applied if the property was annexed . Discussed the FEMA/County remapping in 2006 . Discussed regulations as they apply to residential structures . Discussed variance process . Discussed No Adverse Impact. He was concerned about others being allowed to flood his existing structures . Suggested he talk with County about Shields Street bridge replacement. He will fill out comment form and return it to us . 12/6/10 Alden Hill Page 2 of 2 5 of 13 Natural Resources City of 215 Mason a Boo x 580 Fort 6rt Collins FortCollins, 80521 970.221 -6600 970.224-6177 - fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BAORD Date : December 15 , 2010 To : Mayor and Council Members From: Liz Pruessner on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board Subject: Poudre River Floodplain Regulations The NRAB , fulfilling its role to evaluate matters pertaining to natural resources and environmental protection and management issues of concern to the City has listened carefully to Stormwater staffs presentation regarding the options they considered and their recommendation for limiting development within the Poudre River's 100-year floodplain. The options are : ( 1 ) The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0. 1 foot rise floodway; (2) The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain; (3 ) No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative) ; and a No Adverse Impact possibility. Building in the floodplain is not in the best long-term ecological interest of the Poudre River, one of our region's key environmental features, because it may: (a) significantly disturb the native or semi-natural river corridor's habitat, (b) interfere with the river's ability to migrate within its floodplain, (c) isolate one portion of the corridor from another via constrictions or other encroachments, and/or (d) be a source of hazardous materials or other damage-causing debris. On the other hand, we recognize that some areas within the river's 100-year floodplain are already considerably developed and have little or no current environmental value, Fortunately, there are administrative ways to mitigate any hardship that may be associated with continued occupancy and further improvement of these parcels. We recognize too that the chosen floodplain regulation may have far-reaching consequences in terms of human safety, protection of or encroachment on private property rights, and public liability and expenditures for reasonably foreseeable floods. Fortunately, eliminating 100-year floodplain encroachment may serve well to minimize negative consequences in all of these areas, bolstering the City's Triple Bottom Line accounting. We look forward to seeing the economic analysis of each of these options. Options 1 and 3 do not offer the full level of protection afforded by Option 2, and the "No adverse impact " option, though showing potential for the future, needs an operational definition. Page 1 of 2 6of13 �Fort Collins In addition, Option 1 would require considerable expenditure of public funds, estimated to be as much as $250,000 for mapping, which would be unnecessary if Option 2 were adopted. Finally, the NRAB notes that flooding is a natural and inevitable phenomenon, with restorative benefits to both the river and riparian ecosystems. The wisest course of action is to let the river do what it does best without interference. Time and again, rivers show their enormous power to foil man's best efforts to control them. Accordingly, the NRAB recommends (on a 6 to 1 vote) that Council adopt staff Option 2 — No New Structures in the 100-year Floodplain. Please feel free to contact me regarding the NRAB ' s comments on this issue. Respectfully Submitted, Liz Pruessner, Chair Natural Resources Advisory Board cc : Darin Atteberry, City Manager John Stokes, Director, Natural Resources Dept. Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 7of13 Utilities Water Board City of 7oo Wood 80 PO Box 5H0 Fort Collins 9702216702 702 s7 2167l Collim 2 E ,. . - .. s7o o2 970 A 16 220H f i Mgov cone MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 2010 TO: Mayor Doug Hutchinson and City Councilmembers FROM : Gina C. .la nclt, Water Board Chairperson CC: Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director RE: Water Board Reconmundations concerning Floodplain Regulations The Water Board appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Floodplain Regulations as recommended by staff. Below is a summary of the public comment and discussion at the 8/ 19/ 10 Water Board meeting along with our recommendation . Public Comment The Water Board rarely receives public comment ut our meetings and we were happy to see the interest in the Floodplain Regulations item. Approximately 20 people attended the mceling including representatives from the Board of Realtors, Homebuilder' s Association , the Hol'fman lamily ( who own the land at Link N Greens) and developer representatives Rich Shannon and Bruce Hendee. About seven people spoke to the Board . The majority of* comments were concerns about the impacts that new, more stringent I1exldplain regulations might have on individual property owners and the polential economic losses that would result for their properties from the new rules . It was requested that the problem necessitating new regulation be fully described and documented with data . It was asked whether this rule would later be applied to the other drainage basins in the city or only be applicable to the Poudre River Iloodplain . The Hoffman family indicated their property had not flooded near their barn during the 1864 and 1904 floods and that any further restrictions for developing in the Iloodplain would make their property "worthless and undevelopable". Ed Zdenick commented on his current negotiations with the city for right of way fora property that is getting ready to be developed and wondered what impact the rules would have on that negotiation. The Water Board chair indicated to the audience that the Water Board is advisory to City Council and no decisions would be made by the board, just recommendations. I also encouraged them to attend or watch the 8/24 City Council Work Session and stated that there was likely to be more public outreach on this issue before any Council action . Water Board Discussion and Recommendation Marsha Hilmes-Robinson gave a presentation covering the current regulations and the three proposed options which were: 1 . Change the Flood rise rule from .5 feet to . I feet, 2. Prohibit new structures in the 100 year Floodplain, or 3 . Keep the rules as they are now. She reviewed the history of the Floodplain rules and their changes since 2000 including the 2007 amendments which were designed to make the city and county regulations the same, but which made the city' s rules less stringent and the county' s rules more stringent. 8of13 City of F6rt Col lit"1S [ it response to qµieslions from the Board, Marsha indicated that flood insurance is typically mandated by lenders Kit properly has a mortgage or loan, but that if* lite properly is paid for in cash or the morlgall is r fully paid off, there is no other mandate to have flood insurance . She inlormed us about the city ' % "willing buyer/willing seller" program that allows the city to purchase properties when the seller wants to sell ( if funding is availahle ). Finally, staff also reviewed the status o1' similar or diIlerent regulations of other cities in Colorado and other slates around the country which are either more or less stringenl . Staff also lalked about the current approach of ' Du No I larm" from the Associalion of Slale F000dplain Managers. This approach says that Iloodplain development should not impact other property owners . Finally, Marsha indicated that across the country floods are causing increasing properly and economic damages. The Water Board members discussed the dillicully in Irying to measure economic impacts to land owners who could not develop all of* their properly and to adjacent or downstream properties impacted from flooding caused by Iloodpfain fill and development. It was mentioned that the triple hotlum line approach includes social , environmental and economic goals and lhal the balancing between these values isn ' I always easy. The Water Board tries to weigh llte rights of individual property owners to develop their properties versus the rights of other property owners to not incur costs from floudplain development . Comments were made that when structures are in the floudplain and get washed away in a flood, they can block or damage bridges and roads and increase the flooding of downstream properties . II was mentioned that floudplain regulations are adopted to protect the public ' % health and safety and to protect private property and businesses. Finally, comments were made about the public costs of floods in terms ol' city lire, police, ambulance, and landfill expenses for rescue and clean-up. Upon completion of* the discussion, David Pillard moved that the Board recommend Option #2 to City Council to prohibit structures in the 100 year floudplain . The motion was seconded by Mike Connor. Duncan Eccleston recommended a friendly amendment suggesting the motion include the recommendation fur more public outreach and the notion was amended to endorse the staff recommendation, specifically: The Woler Board snplmrls the sla//' rc•c•ormnendation to not allot, net, structures in the Ponch•e Rirrr / 00- ►�cmr,lloodpluin ( Option#2 ) mul recommends to Ofv Council thm sKij' crontillne frith public ornrcmch converning changingChupner l0 g1* Cif ►' Coda to not lallotr nens slruc•tures in the Pondt-e Ritter./loodplain. The vote on the notion passed 5 to 2 . Board members Phil Phelan and Steve Balderson voted no and expressed the view that they had supported the regulation changes in 2007 and did not see a reason to change them again . 9of13 ('ouncil to hull in resources from other departments who could further analyse some aspects of this decision . Hoard Member Brown feels it is risky and the public all incurs costs from putting structures in the floodplain . There are other pieces of the Triple Bottom Line to weigh in on . Chairperson Janell will support the motion , noting her understanding that it ' s a cost to someone who wants to make the most economic use of their property . When agreeing to allow fill in the floodplain , the water goes somewhere else, and a neighbor who is impacted is nol compensated for the damages . It also impacts infrastructure such as bridges and streets , the community ' s ability to travel , and safely response by fire and police . It ' s a balancing act 1b1' how best to protect a%Pecls such as life safety and infrastructure . Vote on the motion by roll call : Pillard - Aye Connor Aye Eccicston Aye Phelan — Nay Balderson — Nay Janett Aye Brown — Aye Motion passes with 5 for, 2 against . (The reasons for nay votes by Vice Chairperson Balderson and Board Member Phelan are noted (above ). 5 10 of 13 Follow us on Facobook ID SavethePoudre . org Poudre if'afcrkrcper r. A V Ethe P419 U TY y ` 1 s August 16, 2010 To : City of Fort Collins and other interested parties From : Save the Poudre : Poudre Waterkeeper RE : Qualified support for staff' s recommendation to not allow new structures in the Cache la Poudre River' s 100-year floodplain "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. " — Benjamin Franklin Dear City of Fort Collins, We thank City Council, Stormwater Staff and the Water Board for initiating a valuable ' repurposing' of the Stormwater Utility's objectives, and we thank staff for inviting our organization to comment on one element of that repurposing, a proposed change in the floodplain regulations to minimize or disallow new structures in the Poudre River's 100-year floodplain . This letter describes our "qualified" support for the staff recommendation, Option #2 . Following the City 's Triple Bottom Line evaluation framework, Option #2 will prove least expensive for ratepayers and the City, and most beneficial for the city's greater community vision as well as the environment . Option #2 is the only option that is fundamentally fair to all floodplain property owners because it minimizes economic and environmental damage all along the floodplain corridor. First, floodplains play an extraordinary positive role in protecting rivers, riparian ecosystems, human health and safety, and in local economies . Hard structural development in floodplains unavoidably leads to a host of negative effects, all of which have occurred — and are occurring — locally along the Poudre River including: 1 11 of 13 o Unnaturally high water elevations upstream leading to excess flooding, property damage, and potential human safety issues, o Unnaturally erosive velocities downstream leading to streambank destabilization , excess sedimentation, and habitat destruction for fish and other aquatic species, o Threats to local businesses along the floodplain both upstream and downstream from development, o Destruction of riparian and critical wetland habitats . Second, the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office has issued stringent guidance on development in floodplains along the Front Range of Colorado. Specifically, that guidance ( https ://www : nwo . usace . army . mil/html/od-tl/floodplains . dro-guidance .9 - lun -06 . pdf) states : Floodplains possess significant natural values and carry out numerous functions important to the public interest. These include water resources values ( natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge ), living resource values (fish, wildlife, and plant resources), cultural resource values ( open space , natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor education, and recreation ) and cultivated resource values (agriculture , aquaculture, and forestry) . The Denver Regulatory Office ( DRO), after analyzing numerous project authorizations and recent permit applications, has determined that an unacceptable cumulative degradation of floodplain functions and values is occurring along the Colorado Front Range. This cumulative degradation of floodplains is occurring due to the Front Range' s rapid population growth , coupled with associated floodplain development pressures . The DRO has seen a recent increase in the number of permit applications where applicants propose maximization of developable lands . A substantial component of this maximization occurs with proposed floodplain modifications that reduce the size, functions and values of the floodplain . ... . .. due to unacceptable cumulative floodplain impacts, the following clarifying guidance is provided regarding Individual Permit applications where floodplain development is proposed : .. . If a practicable alternative exists for construction of a project outside of the floodplain , this is the alternative for which a permit should be sought. For proiects where filling of an existing 100-year floodplain is proposed in order to increase developable land , it is doubtful a permit will be issued . (emphasis added ) Third , the Association of State Floodplain Managers ( http : //www . Floods . org ) has documented that U . S. flood damage has increased six-fold from the 1900s to 2007, now averaging over $6 billion annually ( not including hurricanes ) . This has occurred despite investing billions of dollars in structural and non -structural measures . Unfortunately, decisions made in the past about developing in floodplains continue to cause serious consequences in the present. Though those 2 12 of 13 decisions were made with little regard for how they affected property in the floodplain , rising costs and a growing appreciation for the equity issues involved — after flood damage has occurred — have clearly shown that those past decisions are economically unsustainable . Additionally, by allowing one developer to encroach on the floodplain , the profits for that developer are privatized, but the costs to other landowners and the community are socialized , which is unfair and bad public policy. Given the damage created by local floodplain development, the regionally cumulative threats to floodplains along the Cache la Poudre River, and the unsustainability of the economic consequences of past decisions, Save the Poudre : Poudre Waterkeeper supports the total restriction of hard structures within the Poudre's 100-year floodplain . Benjamin Franklin was right : "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure ." Additionally, we also request that the City understand that there is an unacceptable loophole in the proposed rule revision with regards to parking lots which would be classified and allowed as a non -structural ' element within the 100-year floodplain . This unacceptable loophole is why our support for Option #2 is "qualified ." Lining the river with parking lots does not match any acceptable vision for the Poudre River — such lining has already begun to occur. The City should not allow the river to be lined with parking lots — as a community, we need to turn and face the river to appreciate the economic opportunity and ecological life that it provides to the City, not treat it as a parking lot . The non - human world — nature, and the Poudre River here in Fort Collins — have no voice in our public and political processes other than what we humans give them . Save the Poudre is honored to help create a voice for a healthy Poudre River in northern Colorado, including its floodplains . We look forward to engaging with a broad public process that helps meet our mission to protect and restore the Poudre River for future generations . Thank you for considering our position . Respectfully, qI Gary Wockner, PhD, Director Save the Poudre : Poudre Waterkeeper SaveThePoudre . org, 970-218-8310 gary.wockner@savethepoudre . org 3 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT 7 Utilities Executive Director City O� electric . stormwater , wastewater. water Fort Collins Wood PO Box 580 For Fort Collins,, CO 80522 970.221 .6702 970.416.2208 970.224.6003 TDD utilities@fcpov.com fcgov.com/utilities MEMORANDUM Date : August 26, 2010 To : Mayor Hutchinson and City Council members Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director From: Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager Reference: August 24, 2010 Work Session Summary — Floodplain Regulations Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager and Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Floodplain Administrator, presented Council with a brief overview of the work done to date on the Poudre Floodplain Regulations. Council members present included Mayor Doug Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson, Ben Manvel, David Roy, Wade Troxell, and Aislinn Kottwitz. Staff began with the interrelationship between this effort and Plan Fort Collins. It was recognized that the Poudre River is key to the sustainability of Fort Collins. There was discussion indicating that Plan Fort Collins is a long range vision while revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations are immediate considerations . The staff presentation reviewed the three options of proposed levels of floodplain regulation. ( 1 ) Return to a 0. 1 foot allowable floodway rise limitation, or (2) implement a restriction on new and expanded structures within the floodplain, or (3 ) maintain the current regulations. Next staff explained why this item was being discussed, mainly its relation to the Stormwater Repurposing efforts and also its relevance to the Plan Fort Collins discussion. Information regarding the number of parcels, acreage of parcels, and maps showing specific areas of concern under the various options was discussed. A significant portion of the remaining discussion included clarification of the concepts associated with floodplains and the effect of fill or other forms of development. Key discussion and feedback by Council: 1 . Public Outreach Process to explain the range of options considered for proposed changes to the Floodplain Regulations. In general, the Council felt that a significant amount of outreach needed to happen and more should have occurred prior to this discussion. Staff reiterated that the work session serves as 1 of 2 � of t Collins a process check before time and resources are utilized to move forward and that this work session would serve as the beginning of a substantive outreach process. Outreach efforts envisioned would include Boards and Commissions, City departments, stakeholders (i.e. impacted property owners, business associations, interested citizens), and the general public. Parcel-specific information is currently being developed to identify impact to individual property owners as the next step. 2 . Preference on Options for Regulating the Floodplain Council did not feel they had sufficient public feedback to have a preferred option at this time. They were also concerned about these regulations being applied only to the Poudre River Floodplain. Council discussed the need to look for additional options beyond the three currently under consideration, including those related to the "No Adverse Impact" approach that is gaining support nationally. Council expressed a range of comments and feedback. This included: • The concern that the recommendations to strengthen the regulations were not justified and that they would adversely affect the economic health and viability of Fort Collins. The Downtown River District is a key area of development for the City and coordinated development approach along the river would be the prudent approach. • That there needs to be a balance between the economic, social and environmental considerations for the river. • Fort Collins needs to stop building where it is likely to flood. "Let the river be a river. " In accordance with the City Plan, we are to protect and restore the natural functions of the river. • The "river is a workhorse," and the community "should use it more as a playground, not a plaything." • That riparian edge development should be the exception, not the rule, and that 50 to 100 years from now a natural Poudre River would be the greatest community attribute in Fort Collins. 3 . Comments to be added to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Map Time did not allow an in depth discussion of the TBL chart. One Council member did not feel this chart format was easy to use and that it needs to be better organized. Staff concluded with a brief explanation of how comments would be added to the Map. Three Council members supported continuing the discussion while two felt the need was not sufficiently expressed to warrant continuing the process. Specific direction was also provided to Staff to be prepared to address the following questions : 1 . What is the purpose and need to change the floodplain regulations? 2 . Analyze the impact on properties in more detail. 3 . Provide more economic analysis . 4. Describe better "Less people at risk" - how many? 5 . Provide more information on "No Adverse Impact" to the public and to the Council. 2 2of2 =�Ili ;°a!> JI, :IIIII/'�i �'v`' . • . -- 1 - H I� ■■ ^+t_ \ -s �wu• FFY ` 'ice �. . 1 11111■11Rnnn1: ='� =o • �nnlnn711im.- ■�- �� vn Ira III ;;�� � —�' I —■ ■- I tl� Mi ; :� „� 1 •'il '-srA► a� ►`■ _' ■ IN rw.�l■Iglrr■rA.■� it Vill Elio � ■ ' .'7�I 1. •� ``t. � ';�. , , I f. � 1 .� _ I .r .1 • S `���� �II Illlp ♦��� . ■ ■� ,�,1 ' ( �1il.v 1..-�.• . I IM Ii•1■Irrt' ll.i i.'���.� I�i� ■,�1. � d(:I#S� yl�l ly i. ®I , .rmul�a/ I✓ Illlnn..401.1 �iN r■�� ..11- _ . •1■► {_•. ,. �71��I�ls��....r Iwl■ i11�,� ►��I� `� ��' •�I,ii�� �.w� �.I� Ir _ y ..dlll 1 � •-I I. 1■m: 1�!■�-���1 a lli�ilt�u� s � � _ � 7�L" '19� �� � �— 1�111 1 _ •fh ■: ��II�����III"..�IIf7�� v t C a 11 1MO I�: �1� :111 ■lain. V-rt L■■n MIT rA t Sec 1��1 �I • . L 'ski nrnei n Sla, �� �l � ��IV— �1• e��V1Y I` II �Ilr IIl'S J'+7 `i 1'1 �•�4u,�7^ 1 :}3�>♦ ra111� � �: u a. r• . -win 'r ' i;Y 1 1 �,E li■■I }rtl ��iii ! 1 1 • �Tl I . '�'_ �■�I��':Jlr4T►`J - lei■ '', o-. , JIItII+ ` Lill 1 I 2 � 11113 MW!i win MINA M Mi t - I►r�rl{��I -`�`��• �� r j r � .,..,j r s�i i .�1�'��``It;y'�� ' lit _ � ■ a I„ 7 • 1 ■• r � �\� � _ ..t , ' �i'LI■Y i,-+,/ �,� ... 'ter, _ � �, ' • �■+ T'K '- ll , . � ' �..1` � � 'a� .::��`�■IIIII I � � - �Pl,�'i• aI ",,,r� •i ' .iv 1 !r �tRinn nl�• ' ... ` Oil Yl `... NO •I' Il I• n�/1�"+,�M��• l ,r:, • ' I. ' Y ` alR ��II� + ' I 'yk • . Parl City Limits Area �+� I�I 1 r■.■ ' _ Eitc`. �.:�,..m2.. Imo), Pou *..2 , L,IIIIILR� 1 .,. � ,�,I�`ra ■ Idr�° Ifr-li: ` _�1•�%�i� �• 1� Foot Fill E � F -Year Flool �J r J„ ..,.... 77 Year Floodplain 1111 I 1 1 ATTACHMENT 9 Final Report TheE'co.1otnics of bind Use Proposed Floodplain Regulations Economic Impact Analysis awk Prepared for : City of Fort Collins Prepared by : Economic & Planning Systems , Inc . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. January 6 , 2011 730 17th Street, Suite 630 Denver, CO 80202-3511 303 623 3557 tel 303 623 9049 fax Berkeley Sacramento EPS # 20889 Denver www.epsys. com Table of Contents 1 . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scopeof Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Summaryof Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 , PROPERTY IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 AreaAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Estimated Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Development Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Property and Sales Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Non -Area Parcel Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 , NCURA AND DDA IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Development Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Property and Sales Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 , INDIRECT AND INDUCED IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 One -Time Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Annual Ongoing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5 , OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 PolicyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 14PPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 List of Tables Table 1 Summary Estimated Impact Results , . . . . . . . 6 Table 2 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3 Estimated Impacted Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4 Estimated Area Development Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 5 Estimated Area Development Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 6 Estimated Area Annual Property Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 7 Estimated Area Annual Sales Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 8 Area Total Annual Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 9 Non - area Parcels Affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 10 TIF Area Estimated Development Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 11 TIF Area Estimated Property Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 12 TIF Area Estimated Sales Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 13 TIF Area Estimated Total Tax Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 14 One -Time Estimated Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 15 Estimated Annual Ongoing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1 . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Background The City of Fort Collins Department of Utilities has proposed modifications to the City 's current floodplain regulations that would potentially create barriers to the renovation , expansion , or construction of development uses on some properties in the future . The City has requested EPS conduct an economic impact analysis to estimate the magnitude of the impacts on parcels affected by the potential floodplain regulation changes . The City 's existing regulations prohibit all structures within the current floodway ( 0 . 5 foot rise ) , residential structures within the 100 - year floodplain , and critical facilities within the 500 - year floodplain . The Utilities Department conducted an evaluation of the existing standards and identified three options that have been under discussion with the City Council and the general public since August : 1 . Redefining the floodway definition to a 1/ 10 foot rise , or 2 . No structures within the 100 -year floodplain , or 3 . No changes to current regulations . A potential Option 4 " No Adverse Impact" is now under discussion , but is still being defined . It would essentially identify a way to evaluate potential flood - related impacts of proposed developments in the floodplain and allow for a range of mitigation measures to remove or lessen the impact of the local regulatory limits on affected properties . This option could materially affect the overall and localized impacts of the new regulations , but is not evaluated in the economic impact analysis at this time as it is still being formulated . The City Water Board has recommended the second option above , which would affect the greatest number of land parcels . Currently , nonresidential structures are permitted in the 100 - year floodplain provided they are sufficiently elevated and flood proofed . The proposed regulations would prohibit new buildings or expansion of existing structures within the 100 -year floodplain boundary . The City identified four geographic areas within the floodplain that are expected to have the greatest potential for new development for the purpose of this analysis as follows : Area 1 - A portion of the North College Urban Renewal Area north of the downtown area . Area 2 - The area south and west of the intersection of Lincoln and Lemay and north of the Poudre River . Area 3 - An area east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street . Area 4 - An area west of the Poudre River to the north and south of East Prospect Avenue . This economic impact analysis ( EIA) evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed regulations on future development in the above - described areas . The parcels are GIS coded to determine the amount of the site in the floodplain , the current floodway and the proposed new floodway ( under Option 1 ) . For the purpose of this general analysis, the parcels have been grouped by ownership and/or by logical development area boundaries based on estimated future development or redevelopment potentials, thus optimizing development potential by aggregating parcels as Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 20889rpt 010611_Final. doc Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 indicated . The future development potentials have been identified considering the following factors : the viability of existing uses ; existing zoning and approved development plans ; property owner and developer inputs ; City Plan and applicable subarea plan future land use recommendations ; and overall market forecasts and constraints . EPS ' assessment of future development potentials is first estimated under existing regulations . The impact of the two potential regulatory changes on development potential is estimated based on the reduction in buildable land and its impact on development potential of the affected parcels and/ or ownerships . If the current mapping shows that a portion of the development area is within either the Floodway ( Option 1 ) or the Floodplain ( Option 2 ) the amount of development has been estimated to be reduced proportionately based on the reduction in land area available for development for the most likely future development uses forecasted and applicable density levels estimated by floor area ratio ( FAR) for commercial uses or units per acre for residential uses . The assessment of future development potentials is a planning level estimate for overall future buildout in the affected areas over an extended timeframe of up to 50 years . It is therefore an estimate of highest and best use within the areas analyzed and not a current appraisal of value or individualized impacts given the current or future regulatory scenario nor is it constrained by current parcel sizes and configurations . The estimated development potential may or may not be practicable, desirable or realized and the actual time period required for full development at the level described to be realized could be shorter or longer . The figures are therefore designed to estimate the overall impact on future development potential of the proposed regulatory changes compared to current regulations . EPS has not conducted any project specific market forecasts and is therefore not able to provide estimates of development by time period . Current market values are applied by land use category to estimate development values, and potential tax losses . No actual determination of value for identified development areas, ownerships, or individual parcels has been made or is either offered or implied . The actual value of any parcels or sites cannot be determined without more extensive appraisal work and will depend on multiple factors, including but not limited to : the size of the parcel , shape, access, visibility, the willingness to sell ; the quality and viability of existing uses, occupancy levels, and / or net operating incomes; and larger economic and market conditions present at the time of sale . Similarly, the actual impacts of the regulatory changes on each parcel will be dependent upon the particular circumstances and any development and flood mitigation approaches employed . In limited cases, EPS' analysis has postulated that the extent of the floodway or floodplain regulatory change would make new development or redevelopment unlikely. In these instances, for the purpose of this analysis, the existing land uses have been treated as continuing as " grandfathered " uses, and vacant properties have been treated as remaining undeveloped . The lack of development potential represented for this analysis does not indicate that the property has no value . Individualized scenarios that could serve to maximize value on these parcels, such as sale to an adjacent property owner to achieve the combined potential of a larger site and / or floodplain mitigation measures to reduce the area of floodway or floodplain impacts, have not been considered or taken into account in this analysis . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 The potential loss of development market value , assessed value , and annual property and sales taxes are estimated for the four identified high potential areas in the floodplain and for the portions of the floodplain areas located in the North College Urban Renewal Area and the Downtown Development Authority Area . There are also other parcels in the floodplain upstream and downstream of the four study areas for which the total acreage affected is summarized . These parcels were evaluated on a more cursory level by tabulating the total number parcels , acreage , existing development, and impacted areas . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Scope of Work EPS conducted this economic impact analysis of the regulatory options to make a determination of relative impact . The following major tasks were completed in the course of the one month long study . • GIS Analysis - EPS reviewed the proposed floodplain policies and the development areas in the floodplain , obtained the affected property parcel database and aerial photography, identified the affected properties , and overlaid the floodplain changes on the County Assessor parcel level data . • Field Reconnaissance - EPS conducted a field inventory and reconnaissance of parcels and ownerships in the four identified study areas to compare existing conditions to existing zoning and approved development plans . The relationship between the affected development parcels and surrounding land uses was noted for consideration in identifying future land use and applying market values . • Stakeholder Contacts - EPS conducted two days of meetings with affected property owners , developers and business associations in the four identified areas to review the existing developments , ODPs, and other development plans , and to identify and discuss the impacts of the proposed regulations on their properties . • Development Impacts - EPS estimated the future development potential of the parcels and ownerships in the floodplain under current regulations . The estimated reduction in square feet of development potential under the proposed options was then estimated , assuming optimized aggregation for future development and no mitigation improvements . The square feet of commercial uses and the number of housing units was quantified based on ODPs, existing zoning , future land use plans , and average density levels determined from surrounding land uses and other pertinent market factors . • Direct Economic Value - EPS estimated the economic value of the development parcels and ownerships in the mapped floodplain in current ( 2010 ) dollars . Market values were determined from previous market research , comparable sales , and developer inputs . Assessed values were calculated based on average market values and current applicable rates . The market and assessed value impact are meaningful in a relative but not absolute basis . The absolute value of development would also consider development timing which has not been addressed . • Property and Sales Taxes - EPS estimated the annual property taxes associated with the reductions in estimated development value at buildout for each development ownership and subarea analyzed in the floodplain . Annual forgone sales taxes are also estimated for retail/ commercial properties . The loss of potential TIF revenues was quantified for the North College Urban Renewal Area ( NCURA) and the Downtown Development Authority ( DDA) . • Indirect and Induced Impacts - EPS estimated the related indirect and induced economic impacts of the potential loss of economic activity to Larimer County for both one -time and annual ongoing impacts based on multipliers from the IMPLAN input/output model . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Summary of Findings 1 . Option 1 (O. 1 foot Floodway Expansion) would reduce the maximum development potential for the affected parcels by approximately 13 percent compared to what is allowed under current regulations. The impact to estimated future development potential under this option for the four areas in the floodplain that have been examined by EPS is approximately 352 , 000 square feet of space , with $ 66 . 4 million of total development value in current dollars , as shown in Table 1 . The change in City tax revenue for the four areas examined is estimated at $ 576 , 000 annually, including $ 144, 000 of annual property tax and $432 , 000 of annual sales tax . Under this scenario , the one -time total economic impacts from construction for the four areas examined are estimated to total a loss of $ 79 . 3 million , or 665 jobs . The annual ongoing total economic impacts from commercial/ retail and office development for the four areas examined is estimated at $ 138 . 5 million annually , or approximately 830 jobs . 2. Option 2 (No Development in 100- Year Floodplain) would reduce the maximum development potential for the affected parcels by approximately 50 percent compared to what is allowed under current regulations. The impact to estimated future development potential for the four areas in the floodplain that have been examined by EPS is approximately 1 . 4 million square feet of space , with $ 253 million of total development value in current dollars , as shown in Table 1 . The change in City tax revenue for the four areas examined is estimated to total $ 2 . 5 million annually , including $470 , 000 of annual property tax and $ 2 . 0 million of annual sales tax . The one - time total economic impacts from construction for the four areas examined are estimated to total $ 303 . 4 million , or approximately 2 , 540 jobs . The annual ongoing total economic impact from commercial/ retail and office development for the four areas examined is estimated to total $ 644 . 9 million annually , or 3 , 760 jobs as shown in Table 1 . 3. The affected property owners may have the ability to design their development plans and/or use floodplain mitigation improvements to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the proposed floodway/floodplain regulations. The proposed floodplain changes would affect individual parcels and ownerships differently . Some parcels have only minor portions of the site affected by the floodway and/or floodplain while others have large portions of the parcel that could be restricted from future development . In some cases, the manner in which a development is designed and the type and extent of floodplain mitigation measures employed will determine the level of development allowed under the floodplain regulations . In addition , owners can reduce or eliminate the portion of a parcel within the floodplain or floodway using map revision processes . The feasibility and cost/ benefit of these engineered solutions require a more individualized evaluation and are not within the scope of this analysis . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Table 1 Summary Estimated Impact Results Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Description No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New New Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Diff. from No Change % Diff. Development (Sq. Ft.) 2,7955098 25443,024 (3521074) -13% 1 ,430,365 (1 ,364,733) -49% Market Value $488,946,678 $422,557,646 ($6613891032) -14% $235,465,863 ($253,480,815) -52% Property Tax $7491369 $6051555 ($1435815) -19% $2781954 ($4705415) -63% Sales Tax $2,637, 132 $2,205,344 ($431 .788) AQ6 643,910 ($ 1 ,993.222) -76% Total Tax $3,386,501 $25810,899 ($575,602) .17% $922,864 ($294639637) -73% Employment Impacts (Jobs) One-Time Impacts Direct 3,279 2,834 445 -14% 1 ,576 -12704 -52% Indirect 688 594 -93 -14% 331 -357 -52% Induced 929 803 -126 -14% 446 -483 -52% Total 41896 41231 -665 -14% 21352 -21544 -52% Annual Ongoing Impacts Direct 41028 31468 -560 -14% 19501 -29527 -63% Indirect 823 719 -103 -13% 348 -475 -58% Induced 1172 1003 -169 -14% 414 -758 -65% Total 6,023 5, 190 -833 -14% 2,263 -31760 -62% Economic Output Impacts One-Time Impacts Direct $3917157,342 $3385046, 117 ($531111 ,225) -14% $ 1877932,690 ($2031224,652) -52% Indirect $82,052,685 $705911 ,596 ($11 , 141 ,089) -14% $3%422,453 ($421630,232) -52% Induced $ 110,779,280 $95,737,703 ($15,041 ,577) -14% $53,224,229 ($57,555,050) -52% Total $583,9895306 $5045695,416 ($7992935891 ) -14% $280,5791372 ($3039409,934) -52% Annual Ongoing Impacts Direct $77%8041602 $6885158,658 ($9156452944) -12% 353,3821901 ($42654212701 ) -55% Indirect $ 1951675,433 $ 173,5961075 ($2230795358) -11 % 92, 102,945 ($103,5725488) -53% Induced $206,584,510 $ 181 ,792, 106 ($24,792,405) -12% 91 ,697, 143 ($114,887,368) -56% Total $1 , 1821064,545 $ 1 ,043,5461839 ($13815171706) -12% $537, 1829989 ($64418811557) -55% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889-Fart Collins Floodplain Regulation\Dela\[20899-Fart Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910 xlsll Jolal Summary Limitations The estimated overall economic impacts in the four areas analyzed represent a highest and best use determination of future development over an extended time period . The total impacts may or may not be realized due to multiple factors including the ability or interest of the property owners to capitalize on the potential development opportunities . Future development could also take place at lower ( or higher) densities than estimated which would affect the potential impacts commensurately . In addition , changes to other regulatory and market conditions could have a substantial impact on the validity of the estimated values and impacts in this analysis . All economic impacts ( direct, indirect, and induced ) reported represent gross potential impacts , not " net new " impacts . If the development potential identified under each option is not built , a portion of this projection of private construction ( office , retail , residential , etc . ) would likely occur elsewhere in the City and surrounding area to meet regional demand . Only employment generated from primary jobs ( new businesses and/or businesses relocating from outside of Larimer County ) , destination retail uses not located in the region , and natural regional growth can be considered net new . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 The IMPLAN model operates on the assumption that constant returns to scale exist . That is, each unit of increase in employment results in the same unit increase in output and productivity . The model also assumes there are no constraints on supply and demand . In other words , IMPLAN assumes that there is demand for each good or service produced . Output that is not consumed locally within the study area is assumed to be exported , and local industries can expand production to meet demand . Despite these limitations , IMPLAN remains the most precise model for estimating Gross Economic Impacts . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Final Report 2 . PROPERTY IMPACTS Area Analysis Based on significant commercial frontages , surrounding uses , City plans , and estimated development potential , the City identified four primary geographic areas within the floodplain in which the overall potential for future economic development is the greatest . These areas are listed below with a map of each area included in the Appendix . • Area 1 - A portion of the North College Urban Renewal Area ( NCURA) north of the downtown area at the intersection of North College Avenue and Vine Street . This area also features five parcels on the south side of Hickory Street (Area 1A) included in the NCURA boundaries . • Area 2 - An area at the southwest section of Lincoln and Lemay, including the Link- N - Green Golf Course redevelopment parcels, several contiguous parcels to the west, one large parcel on the north side of Lincoln , and impacted parcels along Linden Street near the intersection of Buckingham Street . A majority of these parcels are included in the DDA boundaries . • Area 3 - An area east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street . • Area 4 - An area west of the Poudre River along the north and south sides of East Prospect Avenue , including a portion of WW Reynolds Office Park, Gateway Medical Clinic, and Neenan Development offices . A total of 305 acres of land parcels within these four areas would be affected by the proposed change in regulations . These 305 acres contain 626 , 000 square feet of existing development, representing an assessed value of almost $ 15 . 0 million as shown in Table 2 . In the projections developed by EPS , total development square feet and assessed value is expected to change over time based on future redevelopment, as some buildings are demolished for new larger buildings , while other structures remain in use as is . Table 2 Existing Conditions Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Description Acres Dev. Sq . Ft. Assessed Value Area # 1 38 .4 95 ,210 $25027 , 850 Area # 2 135 .4 162 , 660 $39186 , 910 Area # 3 81 . 1 1449124 $39607 , 990 Area # 4 50 .4 2249405 $69115 , 930 Total 305 .3 626,399 $ 14,9389680 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation\Data\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910.xl Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 20889rpt 010611_Fina1. doc Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Methodology EPS examined the County Assessor parcel data for the selected areas and identified a list of subareas based on contiguous ownership and surrounding land uses . Each subarea is composed of one or more parcels which are likely to be assembled and developed together or independently, but with complementary uses . Area 1 features six subareas , Area 2 also features six subareas , Area 3 features seven subareas, and Area 4 features four subareas . EPS compared the ( re ) development potential of each subarea to current regulations ( No Change) under each of the proposed options, including : • Option 1 - 1/ 10 foot Floodway Expansion , or • Option 2 - No Development ( new buildings ) in the 100 -Year Floodplain . Under existing regulations , no development of buildings is allowed in the 0 . 5 foot floodway , yielding just over 240 developable acres as shown in Table 3 . Under Option 1 , the floodway is expanded to a 0 . 1 foot floodway, yielding just over 215 developable acres . Under Option 2 , no development of buildings is allowed in the 100 - year floodplain , yielding 114 developable acres . Table 3 Estimated Impacted Acres Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Description Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-Year Floodplain Acres Acres in Floodway % Impacted Net Acres in Floodway % Impacted Net Acres in Floodplain % Impacted Net Area # 1 38.4 4.3 11 % 34.2 6.3 16% 32.1 29.0 76% 9.4 Area # 2 135.4 27.7 20% 107.7 41 .9 31 % 93.5 74.2 55% 61 .2 Area # 3 81 .1 17.3 21 % 63.8 25.9 32% 55.2 45.7 56% 35.4 Area # 4 50.4 15.6 31 % 34.8 15.6 31 % 34.8 42.1 83% 8.3 Total 305.3 64.8 21 % 240.5 89.6 29% 215.7 191 .0 63% 114.2 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain Reg ulalion\Data\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Ana lysisl22910 xls[2-Area Impact (2) Future redevelopment potential for each subarea was estimated based on the viability of existing uses ; existing zoning and approved development plans, property owner and developer inputs, City Plan and applicable subarea land use plans ; and recent market forecasts and constraints . If a small portion of the ownership/development area is lost to either the floodway ( Option 1 ) or is in the floodplain ( Option 2 ) the magnitude of development is estimated by applying an estimated generalized density factor, measured by floor area ratio ( FAR) for commercial uses or units per acre for residential uses . In cases where a significant portion of the property is shown as within the defined floodway ( Option 1 ) or within the defined floodplain ( Option 2 ) , and thus is likely to have marginal buildable land remaining for the purpose of this analysis under either option , there is assumed to be no change in development . In addition , where residential development was identified for future use , density factors were only applied to areas outside of the 100 -year floodplain as defined under current regulations . The development potential of each subarea was summed to produce the total redevelopment potential for each area under each option and then compared to current regulations to determine the net impact of each proposed option . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Upon identifying each area 's estimated development capacity, EPS applied an estimate of market value using a direct capitalization income approach , incorporating local market data and inputs . The redeveloped market values of Options 1 and 2 were then compared to existing regulations to determine the impact of the proposed options . To identify the related impacts to City property tax revenue , EPS applied local assessment and tax rates . To identify the related impacts to City sales tax revenue , EPS applied estimates of annual sales to subareas identified for retail development and then applied the local sales tax rate . Estimated Development Potential Based on the outlined methodology, EPS identified total development potential of 2 . 8 million square feet under current floodplain regulations across the four areas examined , as shown in Table 4 . Redevelopment potential identified under Option 1 totals 2 . 4 million square feet, and under Option 2 totals 1 . 4 million square feet . This level of development is expected to result in an estimated $489 million of total future market value under current regulations , $423 million under Option 1 , and $ 235 million under Option 2 . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Table 4 Estimated Area Development Potential Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft. Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Area # 1 38.4 95,210 151 ,306 113,502 0 264,807 127,648 1069983 0 234,631 91064 289513 0 37,578 Area # 2 135.4 1627660 164,976 411 , 174 11512,795 290885945 141 ,650 3543135 13322,022 1 ,8171806 82,025 2453307 8755283 192025615 Area # 3 81 . 1 144, 124 1049942 178,341 80,063 363,346 75,727 1569797 809063 3129687 0 1059110 80,063 185, 172 Area # 4 50.4 2247405 0 78,000 0 78,000 0 783000 0 78,000 0 0 0 0 Total 305.3 6269399 421 ,224 781 ,016 1 ,592,858 29795,098 345,025 695,915 114023085 21443,024 91 ,089 378,930 9559346 1 ,425,365 Market Value Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft. Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total New MV New MV New MV New MV New MV New MV New Sq. Ft. New MV New MV New MV New MV Area # 1 38.4 957210 $31 ,8003324 $173217, 196 $0 $49,017,519 $2673593109 $16,5003144 $0 $42,859,253 $270843778 $4, 1863459 $0 $6,271 ,236 Area # 2 135.4 162,660 $37,3443490 $623026,637 $277,0703236 $376,4419362 $31 ,9793389 $53,3033035 $242, 128,638 $32794119061 $18,8653775 $353596A11 $160,3047887 $21497679073 Area # 3 81 . 1 144, 124 $24, 1361728 $9,9333515 $ 1338777554 $473947,796 $17,4171210 $5A521567 $133877554 $363747,331 $0 $0 $133877,554 $133877,554 Area # 4 50.4 224,405 $0 $1535403000 $0 $15,540,000 $0 $15,5403000 $0 $15,540,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 305.3 626,399 $93,281 ,541 $1041717,347 $290,947,789 $488,946,678 $75,755,708 $901795,746 $256,006,192 $422,557,646 $20,950,552 $391782,870 $174,182,441 $234,915,863 Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H M889-Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation\Data\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910.xis]4-Redev Prog Summary Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Development Impacts In order to identify the magnitude of impacts under each option , the estimated level of potential development with no changes in regulation must be netted against the estimated potential redeveloped market value of Options 1 and 2 . Under Option 1 , a total of 352 , 000 square feet of estimated new potential development activity shown as unrealized , representing a general current market value of $ 66 . 4 million , as shown in Table 5 . Under Option 2 , a total of 1 . 4 million square feet of new potential development would not be realized , representing a general current market value of $ 253 . 5 million . While development would likely occur over time , the development values shown represent current market values . These values are not significant in the absolute as they do not consider the impact of time , inflation or appreciation . The relative difference between alternatives is the significant value with Option 1 ( 0 . 1 foot Floodway) representing an estimated overall reduction in new market value of approximately 14 percent compared to projections under the current regulations and Option 2 ( 100 -Year Floodplain ) representing a estimated overall reduction in new market value of approximately 52 percent . Table 5 Estimated Area Development Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 264,807 234,631 (30, 176) - 11 % 377578 (227,230) -86% Area # 2 2,088,945 1 ,817,806 (271 , 139) - 13% 1 ,207,615 (881 , 330) -42% Area # 3 363,346 312, 587 (50,759) - 14% 185, 172 ( 178, 173) -49% Area # 4 78,000 78,000 0 0% 0 (78,000) - 100% Total 21795,098 254435024 (352,074) -13% 1 ,4305365 ( 15364,733) -49% Market Value No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New MV New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 $49,0175519 $42,8591253 ($6, 1581266) - 13% $6,271 ,236 ($42,746,283) -87% Area # 2 $376,4415362 $327,4111061 ($49,0301301 ) - 13% $215,317,073 ($ 161 , 124,290) -43% Area # 3 $47,9475796 $36,7471331 ($11 ,2001464) -23% $ 13,877,554 ($3410701242) -71 % Area # 4 $15,5405000 $15,5401000 $0 0% $0 ($ 1515401000) - 100% Total $488,9469678 $4221557,646 ($665389,032) -14% $23594655863 ($2531480,815) -52% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation\Data\I20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910.xls12-Area Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Property and Sales Tax Impacts Based on the estimated reduction in future development potential that could result from the proposed Options 1 and 2 , there would also be a related reduction in estimated property tax and sales tax revenue to the City . EPS applied the applicable assessment and City mill rate of 9 . 79 mills to the market values to estimate annual property tax levels for each option at buildout based on the estimated development potential . Based on current values, the City would collect $ 144, 000 less in annual property tax revenue under Option 1 , and $470 , 000 less under Option 2 as shown in Table 6 . Table 6 Estimated Area Annual Property Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New Sq. Ft, New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 2645807 234,631 (30, 176) -11 % 37,578 (2277230) -86% Area # 2 210885945 11817,806 (271 , 139) -13% 1 ,207,615 (8817330) -42% Area # 3 363,346 312,587 (50,759) -14% 1851172 (178, 173) -49% Area # 4 785000 78,000 0 0% 0 (78,000) -100% Total 217951098 254431024 (3521074) -13% 1 ,4305365 (113641733) -49% Assessed Value No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New AV AV Diff. from No Change % Diff. AV Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 $12,7935573 $11 , 186,265 ($17607,307) -13% $ 1 ,636,793 ($11 , 156,780) -87% Area # 2 $45,7855176 $39,604,808 ($6, 1802368) -13% $25,8421423 ($19,942,753) -44% Area # 3 $9,8865521 $6,963,200 ($21923,321 ) -30% $994, 188 ($83892,333) -90% Area # 4 $8,0245400 $4,0551940 ($31968,460) -49% $0 ($8,024,400) -100% Total $7614899669 $61 ,8101213 ($14,67%456) -19% $283473,403 ($487016,266) -63% Property Tax No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Property Tax Property Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Property Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. 9.797 9.797 9.797 Area # 1 $ 1255339 $109,592 ($152747) -13% $16,036 ($1095303) -87% Area # 2 $448,557 $388,008 ($60,549) -13% $2531178 ($1953379) -44% Area # 3 $965858 $68,218 ($28,640) -30% $9,740 ($87, 118) -90% Area # 4 $785615 $39,736 ($382879) -49% $0 ($785615) -100% Total $7499369 $6059555 ($1431815) -19% $278,954 ($4701415) -63% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H �20889-Fort Collins Floodplain RegulatmnlDatag20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis 122910 sap Area Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 To estimate the impact on potential future sales tax revenues received by the City , EPS applied an overall average annual sales factor of $ 250 per square foot to all existing and future new retail development . Depending on the subarea , retail square footage ranged from 50 to 100 percent of the identified commercial/ retail development . EPS then applied the current total City sales tax rate of 3 . 85 percent sales tax rate to estimated annual sales . Under Options 1 and 2 , based on the estimated reduction in overall economic development in the area , the City would collect approximately $ 432 , 000 and $ 2 million less sales tax revenue , respectively, than under current regulations as shown in Table 7 . Table 7 Estimated Area Annual Sales Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 264,807 234,631 (30, 176) -11 % 377578 (2277230) -86% Area # 2 2,088,945 1 ,817,806 (2713139) -13% 1 ,207,615 (8817330) -42% Area # 3 363,346 312,587 (50,759) -14% 1857172 ( 1787173) -49% Area # 4 78,000 78,000 0 0% 0 (787000) -100% Total 21795,098 25443,024 (352,074) -13% 1 ,430,365 ( 1 ,364,733) -49% Ann. Sales No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Ann. Sales Ann. Sales Diff. from No Change % Diff. Ann. Sales Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area #' l $28,569,968 $24,577, 773 ($3,9923195) -14% $2,0397456 ($26,5307512) -93% Area #' 2 $28, 120,957 $24, 184,606 ($3,9363352) -14% $ 14,6857487 ($13,4357470) -48% Area #' 3 $11 ,806,008 $8,519,288 ($312861720) -28% $0 ($11 ,8067008) -100% Area #'4 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% Total $68,496,934 $577281 ,666 ($ 111215,267) -16% $167724,943 ($51 ,7713990) -76% Sales Tax No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Sales Tax Sales Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Sales Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. 3.85% 3.85% 3,85% Area # 1 $1 ,0995944 $946,244 ($ 153,700) -14% $78,519 ($1 ,0219425) -93% Area # 2 $1 ,0825657 $931 , 107 ($ 151 ,550) -14% $565,391 ($5179266) -48% Area # 3 $4545531 $327,993 ($ 1263539) -28% $0 ($4549531 ) -100% Area # 4 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% Total $2,6377132 $2,205,344 ($431 ,788) -16% $6435910 ($17993,222) -76% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation\Data\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910.xls]2-Area Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 In total , the City is estimated to have $ 575 , 000 less in potential annual tax revenue under Option 1 . Under Option 2 , the City is estimated to have $ 2 . 5 million less in potential annual tax revenue as shown in Table 8 . Table 8 Area Total Annual Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 264,807 234,631 (30: 176) -11 % 377578 (2277230) -86% Area # 2 2,088,945 1 ,817,806 (2713139) -13% 1 ,2077615 (8817330) -42% Area # 3 363,346 312, 587 (503759) -14% 185, 172 ( 1787173) -49% Area # 4 78,000 78,000 0 0% 0 (787000) -100% Total 21795,098 21443,024 (352,074) -13% 11430,365 (11364,733) -49% Total Tax No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0. 1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Total Tax Total Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Total Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Area # 1 $1 ,225,282 $1 ,055,836 ($ 1691446) -14% $94,555 ($191309728) -92% Area # 2 $1 ,5315214 $1 ,3191116 ($212,099) -14% $8189569 ($7129645) -47% Area # 3 $5515390 $396,211 ($ 155, 179) -28% $99740 ($5419649) -98% Area # 4 $785615 $395736 ($381879) -49% $0 ($789615) -100% Total $3,3867501 $2,810,899 ($575,602) -17% $922,864 ($23463,637) -73% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems Hd20889-Fort Collins Floodplain Regulation\Dataf20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysls122910.xls]2-Area Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Non - Area Parcel Impacts There are other individual parcels or clusters of parcels elsewhere along the Poudre River corridor outside of the four identified areas of analysis . These areas include a large amount of agricultural and open space land outside the immediate path of development . These parcels were evaluated on a more cursory level by tabulating the total number parcels, acreage , existing development, and impacted areas . EPS aggregated these parcels into three geographic areas identified on the maps in the Appendix as follows : • Area A - This area includes all parcels in the floodplain and west of Area 1 . • Area B - This area includes all parcels in the floodplain along Mulberry just west of Timberline Road , not included in Area 3 , as well as all parcels in the floodplain south to Prospect along Summit View Drive . • Area C - This area includes all parcels in the floodplain south of Prospect and not included in Area 4 . Based on the above, the proposed floodplain changes would affect approximately 1 , 500 acres of floodplain property , with 414 acres of this total located in the existing floodway as shown in Table 9 . Under Option 1 , a total of 420 acres are within the floodway , reducing the area outside the floodway by 6 . 4 acres, or about 1 . 0 percent . Under Option 2 , because nearly 1 , 100 acres are in the floodplain , the area affected would be reduced by 678 acres, or 60 percent . The development potential and related market values in these areas have not been analyzed at this time . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Table 9 Non -area Parcels Affected Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Existing No Chance- 0.5 Floodwav Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Area Acres Sq. Ft. Building Sq. Ft. Assessed Value Acres in Floodway Net Acres Acres in Floodway Acres Diff. from No Change % Acres in Floodplain Net Acres Diff. from No Change % Area 577.7 255370,634 1795463 1 ,373,480 82.2 500.2 7.0 575.4 75. 1 15% 327.3 255. 1 -245. 1 -49% Area B 92.8 45045, 146 65,448 2,0381120 32.0 60.8 33.3 59.6 -1 .3 -2% 50. 1 42.8 -18.0 -30% Area C 827.7 38, 1935069 817361 17260,320 299.9 576.9 380.2 496.6 -80.3 -14% 715.2 161 .6 -415.3 -72% Total 11498.2 67,608,849 326,272 $4,671 ,920 414.1 1 ,138.0 420.6 15131 .5 -6.4 -1 % 1 ,092.5 459.6 -678.4 -60% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H t 0889-Fotl Collins Floodplain Reg ulationTataQCopy of 20889 Parcel Acreage and Value 121710 xls]Summary Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Final Report 3 . NCURA AND DDA IMPACTS The proposed changes to the existing Poudre River floodplain regulations would affect a number of floodplain parcels in the North College Urban Renewal Area ( NCURA) and the Downtown Development Authority ( DDA) outlined below : North College Urban Renewal Authority ( NCURA) - An area north of Old Town , east and west of North College Avenue . Downtown Development Authority ( DDA) - An area surrounding Old Town and extending east to Lemay . Both districts have the ability to institute tax increment financing (TIF) under Colorado legislation , which allow each authority to recapture growth in tax revenue over time . As a result, the City has a particular interest in the potential tax revenue impacts on the proposed floodplain regulations . Development Impacts The NCURA plan area includes approximately 27 parcels affected by the proposed regulations, with 22 parcels in Area 1 ( along N . College Avenue ) and five in Area 1A ( along Hickory Street) , for a total of 33 . 8 acres as shown in Table 10 . Under Option 1 , potential development would be reduced by 27 , 000 square feet . Under Option 2 , potential development is reduced by 208 , 000 square feet . This translates into an estimated loss of new market value of $ 5 . 8 million and $40 . 6 respectively . The DDA has a total of 17 parcels in the floodplain , with eight in Area 1 ( south of Vine Street) and nine in Area 2 ( along Linden Street and Lincoln Ave . ) for a total of 27 . 5 acres of impacted parcels , as shown in Table 10 . As a result of Option 1 , potential development is reduced by 3 , 000 square feet . Under Option 2 , potential development area is estimated to be reduced by 27 , 000 square feet . This translates into an estimated loss in new market value of $ 1 . 3 and $4 . 4 million , respectively . Table 10 TIF Area Estimated Development Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft, New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 825418 2455231 217,874 (27,357) - 11 % 375578 (207,654) -85% DDA 27.3 110,453 318,025 315,207 (2,819) -1 % 291 ,525 (26,501 ) -8% Market Value Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain MV New MV New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 --- $4658645151 $417015,941 ($55848,210) - 12% $652715236 ($40,592,915) -87% DDA 27.3 --- $49,929,902 $49,619,846 ($310,056) -1 % $47,014,818 ($2,915,084) -15% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889 For Collins Flood plain Regulation0ata\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910 xls]4DDA-URA Impad Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 20889rpt 010611_Fina1. doc Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Property and Sales Tax Impacts The reduction in estimated development potential under Options 1 and 2 would result in lower potential property tax revenue to each district . Because the NCURA has the ability to capture the tax increment attributable to the total of all applicable property tax levies ( not just the City's 9 . 797 mills ) , EPS applied the applicable assessment and total mill rates of 86 . 53 to estimate the tax increment revenues for the NCURA . Under the projections for reduced development potentials under Options 1 and 2 , the NCURA would collect $ 132 , 000 and $917 , 000 less in annual property tax revenue , respectively , as shown in Table 11 . The applicable TIF rate in the DDA boundary is 91 . 53 mills . The DDA is eligible to collect 50 percent of the tax increment in future years . Therefore , under the projections for reduced development potentials under Options 1 and 2 , the DDA would collect $4 , 000 and $ 35 , 000 less in annual property tax revenue , respectively, as shown in Table 11 . Table 11 TIF Area Estimated Property Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 82,418 245,231 217,874 (27,357) - 11 % 375578 (207,654) -85% DDA 27.3 110,453 318,025 315,207 (25819) -1 % 291 ,525 (26,501 ) -8% Market Value Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain MV New MV New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. New MV Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 --- $46,8645151 $41 ,015,941 ($5,848,,210) - 12% $6,271 ,236 ($40,592,915) -87% DDA 27.3 --- $49,929,902 $49,619,846 ($3105056) -1 % $47,014,818 ($219151084) -6% Property Tax Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Property Tax Property Tax Property Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Property Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 86.53 86.53 86.53 86.53 DDA 91 .53 91 .53 91 .53 91 .53 URA 33.8 $ 156,553 $1 ,058,395 $926,318 ( 1325078) - 12% $141 ,632 (916,764) -87% DDA @50% TIF 27.3 $74,465 $271 ,967 $268,264 (3,704) -1 % $2375148 (34,820) -13% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889 Fort Collins Floodplain Regule[ion\Data\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Ana lysis122910 xls]4DDA URA Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 To estimate the impact of potential forgone sales tax revenue to each district, EPS applied an average annual sales factor per square foot of $ 250 to all existing and future new retail development . Depending on the subarea , retail square footage ranged from 50 to 100 percent of the identified commercial/ retail development . EPS then applied the City 's 3 . 85 percent sales tax rate to estimated annual sales . Under the estimated reductions in development potentials under Options 1 and 2 , the NCURA will forgo potential annual sales tax revenue of $ 154 , 000 and $ 1 . 0 million , respectively, as shown in Table 12 . The floodplain parcels in the DDA area are not expected to produce any new retail development, and as a result, no potential sales tax revenue reductions were estimated . Table 12 TIF Area Estimated Sales Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft, New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 825418 2455231 217,874 (27,357) - 11 % 375578 (207,654) -85% DDA 27.3 110,453 318,025 315,207 (2,819) -1 % 291 ,525 (26,501 ) -8% Annual Sales Acres No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Ann. Sales Ann. Sales Diff. from No Change % Diff. Ann. Sales Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 --- $28,569,968 $2415771773 ($35992, 195) -14% $2,039,456 ($26,530,512) -93% DDA 27.3 --- $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% Sales Tax Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Sales Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. 385% 385% 3.85% 3B5% URA 33.8 --- $1 ,099,944 $946,244 ($ 153,700) - 14% $78,519 ($1 ,021 ,425) -93% DDA 27.3 --- $0 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H.\20889-For Collins Floodplain Regulation\Data\[20899 Forr Cal l ins Floodplain Area Ana lysis122910 xls[4DDAURA Impact Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 In total , the NCURA would forgo the potential in annual tax revenue of approximately $ 286 , 000 under the estimated reduction in development potentials under Option 1 and approximately $ 1 . 9 million under Option 2 , as shown in Table 13 . In total , the DDA would forgo the potential annual tax revenue of approximately $4, 000 under the estimated reduction in development potentials under Option 1 and approximately $ 35 , 000 under Option 2 as shown in Table 13 . Table 13 TIF Area Estimated Total Tax Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Dev. Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. New Sq. Ft. Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 82,418 245,231 217,874 (27,357) - 11 % 37,578 (207,654) -85% DDA 27.3 110,453 318,025 315,207 (2,819) -1 % 291 ,525 (26,501 ) -8% Total Tax Acres Existing No Change- 0.5 Floodway Option 1 - 0.1 Floodway Option 2- 100-year Floodplain Total Tax Total Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. Total Tax Diff. from No Change % Diff. URA 33.8 --- $2, 158,339 $1 ,8721562 ($285,777) - 13% $220, 151 ($119381188) -90% DDA 27.3 --- $2715967 $268,264 ($3,704) -1 % $237, 148 ($34,820) -13% Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20889 For Collins Floodplain Regulation0ata\[20899-Fort Collins Floodplain Area Analysis122910 xls]4DDA-URA Impad Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Final Report 4 . INDIRECT AND INDUCED IMPACTS The total economic impact to the City of the proposed floodplain regulations would include not only the estimated loss of overall potential development value and associated tax revenue , but also the associated loss in economic output and employment associated with the one -time construction costs of potential development and the ongoing employment associated with potential development upon occupancy . These related economic impacts are described in fuller detail below : • Construction Impacts - Construction projects generate direct, indirect, and induced impacts on the larger economy in which the projects occur . These impacts sum to the total estimated economic impact of the construction project and occur one -time , or only during the construction period . In this case , construction impacts represent the construction value of potential development under each option . • Ongoing Employment Impacts - The employment that occupies the commercial/ retail and office development generates direct, indirect, and induced impacts through wages , profits , and purchases . These are ongoing impacts, which occur upon absorption of new development . In this case , employment includes commercial/ retail and office tenants that are estimated to occupy potential development under each option . The IMPLAN model ( Impact Analysis for Planning ) is used to estimate the impacts in this analysis . IMPLAN was originally developed by the USDA Forest Service , Federal Emergency Management Agency , Bureau of Land Management, and University of Minnesota as a tool for informing decisions in land and resource planning . The model is based on a matrix that describes the relationships (transactions) between industries , commodities (goods and services) , and institutions ( households , government, etc . ) . IMPLAN calculates the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of an economic event, defined as follows : • Direct Impact - Direct impacts represent the value or impact of the action taken , in this case the construction spending for the estimated development potential , and the jobs occupying the estimated commercial/ retail and office development . Direct impacts represent the construction value of the estimated new development activity under each option , including supplies , worker compensation , and other direct spending associated with the project . • Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts represent the increases in economic activity by local suppliers necessary to support the direct impacts . For example , the development costs associated with the buildout of estimated development potential under each option would result in an increase in demand from building materials suppliers and professional services, who will in turn increase their purchases from their suppliers . This cycle of increased spending in the economy resulting from the direct impacts represents the indirect impacts . Intra - business transactions resulting from the direct employment occupying potential development estimated under each option also represent indirect impacts . • Induced Impact - Induced impacts ( often referred to as the multiplier effect) represent the impact from the spending of household income derived from wages generated by the direct and indirect impacts . Induced impacts include all varieties of household expenditures such as retail purchases , services, housing , and transportation expenditures . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 20889rpt 010611_Final. doc Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 IMPLAN generates its results in either economic output or employment, using industry data on output per employee in each relevant industry . One - Time Construction Impacts Indirect and induced impacts to the City and surrounding area are generated by the direct investment in the construction and development industry as a result of the estimated development potential in each area . These impacts are 'gone -time " - that is they occur only during construction and do not continue after construction is completed . In this case , economic impacts are generated to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area ( Larimer County ) by the construction of new development potential estimated for each option . EPS estimated the direct impact to the construction industry ( construction value ) by applying a factor of 80 percent to market value . The timing of these impacts will be determined by the timing of estimated new development . Economic Output Under Option 1 , based on the reduction in estimated development potentials , the loss of $ 66 . 4 million of market value would represents approximately $ 53 . 1 million of construction value , as shown in Table 14 . Under Option 2 , the estimated loss of $ 254 million of market value represents approximately $ 203 million of construction value . IMPLAN identifies an indirect multiplier in Larimer County of 0 . 21 for the construction industry and an induced multiplier of 0 . 28 . Thus, for every dollar of direct investment, a total of 1 . 49 dollars is generated to the County . Applying this multiplier to the estimated value of construction loss under Option 1 , EPS estimates the one -time construction impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area to be $ 79 . 3 million . Applying this multiplier to the estimated value of construction loss under Option 2 , EPS estimates the one -time construction impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area to be $ 303 million . The estimated impact under each option would be expected to occur over-time as areas are redeveloped , but would not continue after full buildout of the identified areas . Employment Based on industry data of economic output per employee , IMPLAN can generate the equivalent impacts in terms of jobs . Thus the estimated loss of $ 53 . 1 million of construction value under Option 1 is the same as 445 construction jobs as shown in Table 14 . The estimated loss of $ 203 million of construction value under Option 2 is the same as 1 , 704 construction jobs . The same multipliers can be applied to determine the indirect and induced impacts to employment . Under Option 1 , EPS estimates the one -time construction impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area to equate to 665 fewer construction jobs . Under Option 2 , EPS estimates the one -time construction impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding areas to equate to 2 , 544 fewer jobs . The estimated impact under each option would occur over-time as areas are redeveloped , but would not continue after full buildout of the identified areas . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Table 14 One-Time Estimated Construction Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Option 1 -No Change Option 2- 0.1 Floodway Option 3- Floodplain Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Charge % Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Area # 1 151 ,306 113,502 0 264,807 127,648 106,983 0 234,631 ($30,176) -11 % 9,064 28,513 0 37,578 ($227,230) -86% Area # 2 164,976 411 ,174 1 ,512,795 2,088,945 141 ,650 354,135 1 ,322,022 118173806 ($271 ,139) -13% 82,025 245,307 875,283 1s202,615 ($886,330) -42% Area # 3 104,942 178,341 80,063 363,346 75,727 156,797 80,063 312,587 ($503759) -14% 0 105,110 80,063 1857172 ($178,173) -49% Area # 4 0 78,000 0 78.000 0 78,000 0 78,000 $0 0% 0 0 0 0 ($78,000) -100% Total 421 ,224 781 ,016 11592,858 2,795,098 345,025 695,915 154025085 2,443,024 ($352,074) -13% 91 ,089 3783930 9553346 114257365 ($1 ,36%733) -49% Market Value Option 1-No Change Option 2- 0.1 Floodway Option 3- Floodplain Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % Area # 1 $31 ,800,324 $17,217,196 $0 $4%017,519 $26,35%109 $16,5007144 $0 $42,85%253 ($67158,266) -13% $2,084,778 $4,186,459 $0 $6,271 ,236 ($42,746,283) -87% Area # 2 $37,344,490 $62,026,637 $277,070,236 $376,441 ,362 $31 ,979,389 $53,303,035 $242,128,638 $327,411 ,061 ($49,030,301 ) -13% $18,865,775 $35,596,411 $160,304,887 $214,767,073 ($161 ,674,290) -43% Area # 3 $24,136,728 $9,933,515 $13,877,554 $47,9475796 $17,417,210 $59452,567 $13,8779554 $363747,331 ($115200,464) -23% $0 $0 $13,877,554 $13,877,554 ($34,070,242) -71 % Area # 4 $0 $15,540,000 $0 $15,540,000 $0 $1535407000 $0 $15,540,000 $0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 ($15,540,000) -100% Total $93,281 ,541 $104,717,347 $290,947,789 $488,9465678 $75,755,708 $9057955746 $256,0065192 $422,557,646 ($665389,032) -14% $20,950,552 $39,782,870 $174,182,441 $234,915,863 ($254,030,815) -52% Factor Construction Value' 80.0% $7456255233 $83,7735878 $232,7585232 $391 ,157,342 $60,604,567 $72,6365597 $204,804,954 $338,046,117 ($5351115225) -14% $16,760,442 $31,826,296 $1395345,953 $18759325690 ($203,224,652) -52% Construction Employment' 0.00001 626 702 15951 3,279 508 609 11717 2,834 -445 -14% 141 267 1 ,168 11576 -11704 -52% Outputz Multipliers Direct Impact 1 .00 $74,625,233 $83,773,878 $232,758,232 $391 ,157,342 $60,604,567 $72,636,597 $204,804,954 $338,046,117 ($53,111 ,225) -14% $16,760,442 $31 ,826,296 $139,345,953 $187,932,690 ($20322245652) -52% Indirect Impact 0.21 $15,654,061 $17,573,163 $48,825,461 $82,052,685 $12,712,959 $15,236,906 $42,961 ,730 $70,911 ,596 ($11 ,1411089) -14% $3,515,821 $6,676,170 $29,230,461 $39,422,453 ($42,6305232) -52% Induced Impact 0.28 $21 ,134,538 $23,725,516 $65,919,226 $110,779,280 $17,163,759 $20,571 ,338 $58,002,606 $95,737,703 ($15.041 .577) ACj $4,746,708 $9,013,493 $39,464,028 $53,224,229 ($57,555.0501 -525jj Total 1 .49 $111 ,413,831 $125,072,556 $3473502,919 $583398%306 $90j4813285 $10%444,841 $305376%290 $50436953416 ($797293,891) -14% $253022,971 $47,515,960 $208,0403442 $280,57%372 ($30324095934) -52% Emplovment� Direct Impact 1 .00 626 702 1 ,951 3,279 508 609 1 ,717 2,834 -445 -14% 141 267 1 ,168 1 ,576 -1 ,704 -52% Indirect Impact 0.21 131 147 409 688 107 128 360 594 -93 -14% 29 56 245 331 -357 -52% Induced Impact 0.28 177 199 553 929 144 172 486 803 -126 -14% 40 76 331 446 483 -52% Total 1 .49 934 1 ,049 2,913 4,896 759 909 2,563 4,231 -665 -14% 210 398 1 ,744 21352 -2,544 -52% 'Construction Value estimated at 80 percent of market value 21MPLAN Source: City of Fort Collins; Ecommic 8 Planning Systems H�W9-Fcn Collins FloW an ReguWionr tak[208931MPr E wrncImpact Maly sAs]4-One-Time El Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Annual Ongoing Impacts Tenants that occupy the potential new commercial/ retail and office development estimated under each option represent new employment in the area and therefore generate direct, indirect, and induced impacts through wages , profits , and purchases . In this case the new tenants represent direct employment impacts . Indirect impacts include jobs created from the transactions involved in maintaining operations of the businesses occupying the commercial/ retail and office development . Induced impacts represent jobs created by the spending of household income derived from wages generated by the direct and indirect employment . All of these are impacts are ongoing ; that is , they occur upon absorption of new commercial/ retail and office development and continue in perpetuity . To estimate the annual ongoing direct impacts associated with potential development estimated under each option , EPS applied assumptions about the number of employees expected to occupy new space . EPS applied a factor of four employees per 1 , 000 square feet of building for commercial/ retail development and three employees per 1 , 000 square feet for office development . Residential development is not occupied by employees , and therefore , does not generate any anticipated ongoing business activity . Thus, the 352 , 000 square feet of estimated reduction in development under Option 1 , would equate to approximately 560 permanent jobs . Under Option 2 , the 1 . 4 million square feet of estimated reduction in development would equate to approximately 2 , 500 permanent jobs . These direct employment impacts would occur over- time as construction completes and then in perpetuity . Economic Output Using IMPLAN , the equivalent estimated loss of direct employment based on reduced estimated development potentials under Option 1 represents $ 91 . 6 million of annual economic output, as shown in Table 15 . Under Option 2 , the estimated reduction of direct employment represents $ 353 . 4 million of annual economic output . IMPLAN identifies an indirect multiplier in Larimer County of 0 . 11 for the retail industry ( average of retail store categories ) and an induced multiplier of 0 . 34 . Thus, for every dollar of direct economic investment in the retail industry , a total of 1 . 46 dollars of economic output is generated to the County . For office - using industries, IMPLAN estimates a total multiplier of 1 . 52 . Applying these multipliers to the estimated value of lost ongoing retail and office activity under Option 1 , EPS estimates the annual impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area at $ 138 . 5 million . Applying these multipliers to the estimated value of lost ongoing retail and office activity under Option 2 , EPS estimates the annual impact to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area to be $ 644 . 9 million annually . These annual impacts would occur upon the full buildout of development potential under each option . This is likely to occur over an extended period of time . Employment As calculated above , the 352 , 000 square feet of estimated reduction in development under Option 1 would equate to approximately 560 permanent jobs . Under Option 2 , the 1 . 4 million square feet of estimated reduction in development would equate to approximately 2 , 500 permanent jobs , as shown in Table 15 . The same multipliers can be applied to determine the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 indirect and induced impacts to employment . Under Option 1 , EPS estimates annual ongoing impacts to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding area would equate to the loss of approximately 833 permanent jobs . Under Option 2 , EPS estimates the annual ongoing impacts to the City of Fort Collins and surrounding areas would equate to the loss of approximately 3 , 760 jobs . These annual impacts would occur upon the full buildout of the estimated development potentials under each option . This is likely to occur over an extended period of time . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Final Report Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis 116111 Table 15 Estimated Annual Ongoing Impacts Floodplain Economic Impact Analysis Development Option 1 -No Change Option 2- 0.1 Floodway Option 3- Floodplain Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. From No Change % Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. New Sq. Ft. Area # 1 1513306 113,502 0 2643807 127,648 106,983 0 234,631 -309176 -11 % %064 28,513 0 37,578 -227,230 -86% Area # 2 1643976 411 , 174 17512,795 29088,945 1413650 3543135 133223022 118175806 -2719139 -13% 82,025 245,307 8753283 11202,615 -886,330 -42% Area # 3 104,942 178,341 80,063 363,346 75,727 156,797 80,063 3125587 -509759 -14% 0 105, 110 80,063 185,172 -178,173 -49% Area # 4 0 78,000 0 78,000 0 78,000 0 78,000 0 0% 0 0 0 0 -78,000 -100% Total 421 ,224 7819016 1 ,592,858 2,795,098 3459025 6959915 1 ,402,085 2,443,024 -352,074 -13% 91 ,089 3789930 955,346 1 ,425,365 -1 ,369,733 -49% Employment Option 1 -No Change Option 2- 0.1 Floodway Option 3- Floodplain Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % Comm./Retail Office Residential Total Diff. from No Change % 4 /1 ,000 Sq. Ft. 3 /1 ,000 Sq. Ft. --- 4 /1 ,000 Sq. Ft. 3 /1 ,000 Sq. Ft. --- 4 /1 ,000 Sq. Ft. 3 /1,000 Sq. Ft. --- Area # 1 605 341 0 946 511 321 0 832 -114 -12% 36 86 0 122 -824 -87% Area # 2 660 19234 0 1 ,893 567 11062 0 15629 -264 -14% 328 736 0 1 ,064 -829 -44% Area # 3 420 535 0 955 303 470 0 773 -181 -19% 0 315 0 315 -639 -67% Area # 4 0 234 0 234 0 234 0 234 0 0% 0 0 0 0 -234 -100% Total 1 ,685 2,343 0 4,028 1 ,380 29088 0 3,468 -560 -14% 364 19137 0 1 ,501 -21527 -63% Output/Emp.' $55,084 $293,205 --- --- $555084 $2935205 --- --- --- --- $55,084 $2935205 --- --- --- -- Output $92,8%135 $686,994,467 $0 $77%804,602 $7690209818 $61291379840 $0 $688,158,658 ($91 ,645,944) -12% $20,070,114 $33393129787 $0 $353,382,901 $35353825901 -55% Multipliers' Direct Impact 1 .0 1 .0 --- --- 1 .0 1 .0 --- --- --- --- 1 .0 1 .0 --- --- --- --- Indirect Impact 0.11 0.27 --- --- 0. 11 0.27 --- --- --- --- 0. 11 0.27 --- --- --- --- Induced Impact 0.34 0.25 0.34 0.25 --- 034 0.25 --- --- --- --- Total 1 .46 1 .52 --- -- 1 .46 1 .52 --- --- --- 1 .46 1 .52 --- Output' Direct Impact $9228102135 $68629942467 $0 $77978047602 $76,020,818 $612, 137,840 $0 $68821582658 ($91 ,645,944) -12% $20,070,114 $333,312,787 $0 $353,3822901 ($42694219701 ) -55% Indirect Impact $1035383034 $18531373399 $0 $195,675,433 $8,631 ,708 $164,964,367 $0 $17325962075 ($22,079,358) -11 % $2,278,841 $8978247104 $0 $92,1022945 ($10395729488) -53% Induced Impact $31 ,728,301 $174,856,210 $0 $206,584,510 $25,988,663 $155,803,442 0 $181 ,792, 106 ($24,792,405) -12% $6,861 ,218 $84,835,924 0 $91 ,697,143 ($114,887,368) -56% Total $135,0769470 $19046,988,076 $0 $1918290649545 $110,641 ,189 $932,905,650 $0 $1v043v5469839 ($138,517,706) -12% $29,2109174 $507,972,815 $0 $537,182,989 ($64438813557) -55% Employment' Direct Impact 12685 23343 0 42028 11380 21088 0 31468 -560 -14% 364 11137 0 12501 -21527 -63% Indirect Impact 191 631 0 823 157 563 0 719 -103 -13% 41 306 0 348 -475 -58% Induced Impact 576 596 0 1 172 472 531 0 1 003 -169 -14% 125 289 0 414 -758 -65% Total 2,452 31571 0 61023 29009 3,182 0 5,190 -833 -14% 530 1 ,732 0 2,263 -31760 -62% Note: Multipliers for Comm./Retail and Office represent averages of retail stores and office using industries 'IMPLAN Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems HVC&M-Fotl Collins Floodplain Reguia ionUara\20099-I1MPIAN Emnomic l ry d Mal sis bs]9 OnWM El Emp Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Final Report 5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Limitations The economic impacts in the four areas studied represent a highest and best use estimate of future development over an extended time period . The total impacts may or may not be realized due to multiple factors including the ability or interest of property owners to capitalize on the potential development opportunities or aggregate parcels to optimize development potentials . Future development could also take place at lower densities than estimated , which would reduce the overall potential for new development and relative impacts of regulatory changes commensurately . All economic impacts ( direct, indirect, and induced ) reported represent gross potential impacts , not " net new " impacts . If the development potential identified under each option is not built , a portion of this projection of private construction ( office , retail , residential , etc . ) would likely occur elsewhere in the City and surrounding area to meet regional demand . Only employment generated from primary jobs ( businesses relocating from outside of Larimer County) , destination retail uses not located in the region , and natural regional growth can be considered net new . The IMPLAN model operates on the assumption that constant returns to scale exist . That is, each unit of increase in employment results in the same unit increase in output and productivity . The model also assumes there are no constraints on supply and demand . In other words , IMPLAN assumes that there is demand for each good or service produced . Output that is not consumed locally within the study area is assumed to be exported , and local industries can expand production to meet demand . Despite these limitations , IMPLAN remains the most precise model for estimating Gross Economic Impacts . Policy Options The proposed floodplain changes would affect individual parcels and ownerships differently . Some parcels have only minor portions of the site affected by the floodway and/or floodplain while others have large portions that are located within the mapped floodway or floodplain . In some cases , floodplain mitigation measures can reduce or eliminate the portion of a parcel within the floodplain or floodway using existing map revision procedures . Because the feasibility and cost/ benefit of these engineered solutions varies from property to property and must be evaluated on a case by case basis , consideration of these mitigating factors is outside the scope of this analysis . Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 20889rpt 010611_Final. doc Appendix . . . . . 'hk Pq � •, WI : Area 1 Vl ! 1 k 46 " Area 2 Jim Area 3 . � Area 4 C till -end Parcels URA Flood Type 0 ,5 FootFlood way 100 Year Floodplain _ Floodway 1 1 1 - E Area 1 - North College / Urban Renewal Area - Fort Collins , CO ELDER, HARRY J/ MARY LOU I j0S/A/NVj)E& '3 RAND L VENTURES LLC OLD TOWN ALPINE ST RAND L VENTURES LLC NORTH, LLC w 0 z J SEPH LALU GARA, LLC] w FORT COLLINS,\ LLC CA✓ETAN ST m BOWLFORT � I HSH, LLC Q COLLINS , LLC Urban RenewE I A lea W (D PREMIER HOLDINGS OF v J BEMENT, FORT COLLINS, LLC O CYNTHIA G 1� WALTERS, p ROBERT W z ZALLI, AJET BEMENT, N PASCAL S I V CYNTHIA G PA T O Cq w NCR LAND W PROPERTIES LAND W PROPERTIES OLD TOWN NORTH , LLC MESE-21 N, EH4RLESfi IOLDINGS , MFW w LLC w W AND P, HERSH ENTERPRISES, LLC m O (o E VINE D'R `� a Iz V E VINE DR Vl �— w O f /DM�ON Z IY O FLEMING, LORIA MORAK JK'AREN , LLC l�� � �S�ElE�� ��� o U o SYSTEMS w w fQ� FOWJI�i�i / r�� ILL LL o OVA Piro alO! I' z� Downtown Legend Development ® Downtown Dev. Authority A u t h o r i t y ® Urban Renewal Area CITY OF FORT COLLINS (120 Proposed . 1 Foot Floodway FEMA Floodplain Flood Type 100 Year Floodplain - 5 Foot Floodway I:\Data\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins Area 1 / 0 155 310 620 Feet I I I I I I I I • Area 1A - North College / Urban Renewal Area - Fort Collins , CO HICKORY ST a WILLIAM AIMERIAM P Q HANSON w AMERICAN Urban Renewal Area 20 N EDUCATIONAL Qz WILLIAMAI � _ MERIAM P Q WILLIAM AIMERIAM P HANSON HANSON w Q HEMLOCK ST w U w \ O / U / Z Legend Urban Renewal Area Proposed . 1 Foot Floodway ` o FEMA Floodplain z Flood Type 100 Year Floodplain 5 Foot Floodway I:\Data\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Flood plain\20889 Ft Collins Area lA 0 225 450 900 Feet I I I I I I I I \\ Area 2 - Link- N - Greens Golf Course - Fort Collins , CO CATHOLIC CHARITIES ANDL COMM BOHEMIAN /LINDEN LINDEN, LLC STORAGE, ` VLLC ' I ERIC/H FAMILY TRUST Buckingham St Downto n NNNI D e v e l o p m " ' PS-POUDRE h o r i t y �� a�� n� RIVER, LLC Lo an we z �o� �� POUD�RE Sf PRE-MIX, INC U, _ m ' cn cn < ' N CD eA RANG, IN Lincoln Av E III I FCLUC S� �RQNCH-WAY,' LLC MCKEE Je INC E BROTHERS, Vj Q TEAM LLC z Gp�C PETROLEUM o ��C •� O ,f rsa� MCKEE � •t`� 9L BROTHER�� �� JAMES PIRUTH N HOFFMAN LLC / WHISLER, DOROTHY A to m E Oak St U D z Legend �trU!jp/ z RUTH N HOFFM�Nv %-0N w Downtown Dev. Authority W E Magnolia St E Olive 3t �? L� Lam, Proposed . 1 Foot Floodway LINK-N - Y GREENS, INC 7 FEMA floodplain w U) > Flood Type 100 Year Floodplain _ .5 Foot Floodway hData\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins Area 2 0 325 650 1 , 300 Feet \ Area 3 - Lemay Avenue & Mulberry Street - Fort Collins , CO N J Q Y U U c F E w rn V) J N y w V V) O e to U Frontage R=IWL—a Q w w MCCRERY, CYNTHIA D tn_U_O� Z�z u erry Q CLINE, KEVIN L uj ujIIiIIIiIIIiImuJ w J w O w F —� J E Mulberry St ❑ z w ❑ ❑ AGNEW, w � Op a a DILLMAN1 Q Q JOHN/ANDRE > Q aE a O STEVE EAST MULBERRY z z w a o PROPERTIES, 1.111 DD AND B j w w Q z w it Iz0 INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC w z ��z ;Z� yd' ENTERPR SES LLC MOWERY / STOCKOVER � DEVELOPMENT, LLC ENTERPRISES , LLC I.� wg Y �� SPRINGER '—`a1 / FORTiRESS, LLC O 014 PAP i FISHERMNC ❑ STARK, LEE A� � � ► w I �� .F►�N , 07 � SPRINGER FISHER, INC FORTRESS, LLC f cu 9/. ELMER/GARY/GLENN/V/JOHNIG e SCHNEIDER � �, Legend �a" M�iiRd FProposed A Foot Floodway FEMA floodplain Flood Type ,5 Foot Floodway Mcti�9h aeq�e st 100 Year Floodplain I:\Data\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins Area 3 0 315 630 1 , 260 Feet \\ I I I I I I I I • Area 4 - E . Prospect / Sharp Point Dr. - Fort Collins , CO U U BUILDING LLC 0J W w THE NEENANI / / } U BUILDING L WW GATEWAY MEDICAL SERVICES , LLC Q (n fi rospect �— E Pros ect R FP HARP POINT �� i OPERTIES LLC CL / ca a. SHARP POINT ' o_ PROPERTIES LLCIF ••1r����, GIBBENS� 'PO ``DIXIE DEEr�NDERSON (f3.3) �O.fi� Legend SHARP POINT PROPERTIES LLC Proposed AFoot Floodway FEMA floodplain o Flood Type 100 Year Floodplain a 5 Foot Floodway � - Floodway I:\Data\GISQ0889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins Area 4 0 237 . 5 475 950 Feet \\ I I I I I I I 1 9 Downtown Development Authority - Fort Collins , CO Legend V Downtown Dev. Authority E Vine r /// , Proposed . 1 Foot Floodway FEMA floodplain l Flood Type �l 100 Year Floodplain ' ckingham St Cherry St �� L .5 Foot Floodway o� S'f � z CD La ol Ave U e E- incoln Ave CD G� Mo ntce in ve DovNnt , w _ Develop n D Authorit � CD Mtilberry S E Mulber I:\Data\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins DDA 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 .4 Miles North College Urban Renewal Area - Fort Collins , CO Legend Urban Renewal Area I ,ice MProposed . 1 Foot Floodway FEMA Floodplain / — Flood Type 100 Year Floodplain .5 Foot Floodway E Willox Ln a) a> rn m 0 U z Bristlecone Dr CO 0 Urban Renewal Area 3 NV7 Q U) a) Hickory St ' m Conifer St 3 o o N > 00 m rn m w, 0 U z 0 �i �3 / N ,i �-- - E Vine Dr I:\Data\GIS\20889-Fort Collins Floodplain\20889 Ft Collins Area URA 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 .4 Miles I I I I I I I 1 9 ATTACHMENT 10 )O amec Poudre River Flood Damage Impact Assessment Impacts on Existing and Future Development January 4th , 2011 Revised Draft Prepared for : City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins , CO 80521 Prepared by : AMEC Earth and Environmental 1002 Walnut Street , Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 303 =443 =7839 1 of 37 Introduction This report summarizes a study that estimated the economic and other detrimental impacts from flooding on existing and proposed development in four study areas along the Poudre River in the City of Fort Collins , Colorado . HAZUS- MH , FEMA' s GIS - based natural hazard loss estimation tool , was used to perform a flood loss estimation for existing development within the four study areas . Flood impacts to proposed development focused on flood disruption losses , based on development projections combined with estimation based on accepted methods and values associated with both FEMA' s HAZUS - MH and benefit cost analysis software products . Proposed development projected building occupancy and square footage was obtained from a separate economic impact study prepared by a consultant in December 2010 . A qualitative discussion of the potential impacts that were difficult to quantify supplements the disruption cost calculations . The results and additional details on the methods follow in this report . City identified four primary geographic areas for this study based on flood risk and development pressures that are consistent with the separate economic impact study . The Poudre River floodplain study areas included : • Study Area 1 - A portion of the North College Urban Renewal Area ( NCURA) north of the downtown area at the intersection of North College Avenue and Vine Street . • Study Area 2 — An area at the southwest section of Lincoln and Lemay , featuring the Link- N - Green Golf Course redevelopment parcels , several contiguous parcels to the west , one large parcel on the north side of Lincoln , and flood prone parcels along Linden Street near the intersection of Buckingham Street . • Study Area 3 - An area east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street . • Study Area 4 - A portion of WW Reynolds Office Park , Gateway Medical Clinic , and Neenan Development offices along the north and south sides of Prospect Avenue . The Study Areas contain a total of 149 existing structures within the 100-year floodplain and are represented in Figure 1 . The existing structures are primarily commercial however Study Areas 1 and 3 include some residential development . More detailed information on the structures can be referenced in tables located at the end of this report . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 1 Revised Draft 2 of 37 Figure 1 Poudre River Study Areas and 100 Year Flood Depth Grids i I , I I I ^ I I I I j • I I 1 • Study Area 1 Vine Dr. I ........ i l.• 1+ Study Arda , 2 M > ro : Mulberry St. up (UIT • ■ 1 II o --� Study Area 3 Study Area Buildings a IY Local Roads °) L Poudre River a) 100-yr Floodplain E Pros ct St. ~ NO r Study. Area 4 Highways Census Blocks — — j Fort Collins Boundary . .. ... Fort Collins Boundary ame /gyp 0 0. 5 1 Miles N �1 I i I i I AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc. Poudre River Flood Damage Study 2 Revised Draft 3 of 37 Flood Impacts on Existing Development HAZUS - MH was used to perform a flood loss estimation on existing structures within the 4 Study Areas . Site-specific building information for each of the study areas was provided by the City of Fort Collins . The building data was formatted and imported into the HAZUS regions for analysis . Flood depth data was developed for each study for the 10-year flood ( 10% annual chance ) , 50-year flood (2 % annual chance ) and 100-year flood ( 1 % annual chance ) events . Both the hazard (flood depth ) and inventory ( buildings ) data was imported into HAZUS . Depth damage functions were applied to create a detailed loss estimate for buildings in the study areas for the various flood events . Damage Assessment Methodology Buildings The HAZUS - MH Comprehensive Database Management System was used to upload site- specific building information , including latitude/ longitude , structure and contents values , building occupancy ( property) type , date of construction , building type , and presence of basement . For buildings with missing or incomplete data ( roughly 56 of the 149 total buildings ) , the following assumptions were made to complete the building inventory . Assumptions were based on existing building footprint data , parcel and associated assessor' s data , and aerial imagery interpretation . • Occupancy type was assumed either residential , commercial or mobile home , based on high - resolution areal imagery and interpretation from other attributes ; • An average commercial building value of $ 100 , 000 and an average residential building value of $ 87 , 000 was applied to those buildings with missing data , based on typical values in the study areas ; • Commercial contents value was assumed to be 100 % of building value ; residential contents value was assumed to be 50 % of building value ( based on FEMA guidance ) and was applied to all buildings based on occupancy type ; • Masonry is the most frequent building type in the available data and was applied to those buildings with missing building type ; • Average residential year of construction ( 1916 ) and the majority commercial year of construction ( 1979 ) was applied to those buildings with missing attributes , based on occupancy type ; • Residential structures were all assumed to have one story , as data was too limited to make further distinctions ; • Average cost of an out building ($ 5 , 000 ) was applied to 2 Public Open Lands District structures , and to small commercial buildings present on the same lot as higher value commercial structures . • Where building valuation data was included with the building footprints , the assessor' s data was used . Where there was not valuation data in either dataset , the previous assumptions were applied . Flood Depth Depth data in ESRI Grid format was supplied by Ayres Associates for the 10-year flood ( 10 % annual chance ) , 50-year flood (2 % annual chance ) and 100-year flood ( 1 % annual chance ) events for each of the 4 Study Areas . Depth data was imported into HAZUS for analysis of the depth of flooding at each building location . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 3 Revised Draft 4 of 37 Depth Damage Functions HAZUS determines flood damage on a site-specific basis based on the depth of flooding at the location of the facility . Depth damage functions were selected from HAZUS based on the building ' s occupancy type . Depth damage functions used within HAZUS applicable to this study are listed below , along with their source . More detail the Depth Damage Functions and the percent of damage associated with the various flood depths can be referenced in the technical appendix at the end of this report . • Commercial , average retail ( U . S . Army Corps of Engineers ) • Residential , one floor - no basement ( Flood Insurance Administration ) • Residential , one floor - with basement ( Flood Insurance Administration ) • Residential , mobile home ( Flood Insurance Administration ) Depth damage functions were specified by building within HAZUS in the 4 Study Areas , based on their occupancy type . Initial results showed that the appropriate depth damage functions were not being applied within HAZUS , resulting in lower loss estimates . Discussions with HAZUS developers revealed that a known ` bug ' in HAZUS - MH MR4 and HAZUS - MH MR5 keeps the software from applying user-specified damage functions , and instead it uses its default curves . The software does allow the user to edit the damage function to apply to buildings . This method was used for the commercial structures for the 100 -yr analysis in Study Area 1 and Study Area 2 , but was not successful for residential structures or Study Areas 3 and 4 . All other damage estimates were calculated outside of HAZUS within a spreadsheet , using the depth damage functions mentioned previously . For these calculations depth values were rounded up to the highest whole foot interval and the appropriate percent damage applied , consistent with methods used in other City of Fort Collins master planning studies . Income Related Losses and Debris Generation Estimates These losses were included in the analysis to capture additional losses due to business interruption and debris estimates . Income related losses include a one-time flood disruption cost , rental income losses , and capital income losses . In order to calculate these losses the level 1 HAZUS building inventory was used , which is aggregated to the Census Block Level . Displaced Population Displaced population was based on multiplying the count of residential structures by a 2 . 52 average household size factor based on the Census 2000 estimates for Fort Collins . Results Results of the analyses are presented in the following table , which is followed by a discussion of the results by Study Area . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 4 Revised Draft 5of37 Table 1 Estimated Flood Loss to Existing Development by Study Area Building Contents Income - Total Displaced Debris Return Period Damage Damage Related Loss Damage Population* Generated Study Area 1 100-year Flood $ 513, 017 $ 1 , 001 , 272 $ 231000 $ 115371289 15 . 1 29 tons 50-year Flood $ 3711016 $ 661 , 771 $ 151000 $ 1 , 047 , 787 12 . 6 19tons 10-year Flood $ 2001644 $ 262 , 583 $ 71000 $ 470 , 227 12 . 6 7 tons Study Area 2 100-year Flood $ 3501491 $ 1 , 038, 074 $ 81000 $ 1139,61565 0 0 50-year Flood $ 2951737 $ 863, 163 $ 31000 $ 1 , 161 , 901 0 0 10-year Flood $ 351129 $ 101 , 967 $ - $ 137 , 096 0 0 Study Area 3 100-year Flood $ 423, 655 $ 1 , 221 , 743 $ - $ 11645 , 398 52 . 9 3 tons 50-year Flood $ 2121357 $ 622 , 519 $ - $ 8347876 10 . 1 3tons 10-year Flood $ 1131503 $ 333, 916 - $ 447 , 419 0 . 0 - Study Area 4 100-year Flood $ 21965 $ 10, 656 $ 231000 $ 367621 0 9 tons 50-year Flood $ 21865 $ 10, 056 $ 11000 $ 137921 0 - 1 0-year Flood $ - $ - - $ - - - * Based on residential buildings only, 2 . 52 average household size Average annualized losses for each study area shown in Table 2 were calculated based on an equation consistent with HAZUS- MH which represents the sum of the probabilities of the three flood events multiplied by the sum of the total losses for each event . Annualized losses represent the potential flood damage weighted by the probability of that damage occurring any given year. Annualized Loss = [( . 01 + . 02 + . 1 )*( 10-year flood $ loss + 50-year $ flood loss + 100-year flood $ loss )] Total losses across all four Study Areas for the 100-year flood event equate to $4 . 5 million . Annualized losses across all four Study Areas are $ 1 . 1 million . Table 2 Average Annualized Loss by Study Area Study Area 1 $ 3977189 Study Area 2 $ 3507423 Study Area 3 $ 3807600 Study Area 4 $ 61570 Total $ 151345783 Study Area 1 has an annualized loss of $ 397 , 189 , the highest of the four Study Areas . Both the 50 and 100 year floods have potential to cause over $ 1 million in damages . Study Area 1 has 30 commercial structures and 7 residential structures . The highest damages are to the residential structures at 101 and 105 E . Vine Dr. There is an estimated displaced population of 15 persons for the 100-year event and 13 for the 50 and 10—year events . This Study Area also has the most potential for debris generation . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc. Poudre River Flood Damage Study 5 Revised Draft 6 of 37 Study Area 2 has 23 commercial structures , with a total damage of $ 1 , 645 , 398 for the 100 -year event . The annualized loss for these buildings is $ 350 , 423 . Both the 50 and 100 year floods have potential to cause over $ 1 million in damages in this area . Study Area 3 has the most buildings of the four Study Areas , with 53 commercial structures and 25 manufactured homes . All but 4 of the manufactured homes are in the 100-year floodplain . The 21 residential structures in the floodplain resulted in a displaced population estimate of 53 persons for the 100-year event . Most of the mobile homes are outside of the 50 and 10 year floodplains . The Study Area ' s annualized loss is $ 380 , 600 . Study Area 4 is comprised of 11 commercial structures , similar to Study Area 2 . Although flooding is fairly deep for the 100 -year event in this study area ( > 2 ft at inundated structures ) , damage estimates are lower because of low structure values . The two high value structures , at 1625 Sharp Point Dr. and 2620 E . Prospect Rd . , are both outside of the floodplain . The annualized loss for the Study Area is $ 6 , 570 . Flood Impacts on Future Development The second aspect of this study was an estimate of losses to development not yet in place . One of the key assumptions in this study is that new or substantially improved development will conform to local floodplain regulations that are designed to limit or reduce losses to the 100- year or higher frequency flood . For example , commercial buildings may be constructed or substantially improved , but new construction is required to be elevated or floodproofed 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation . Larger floods can occur that exceed the flows and depths associated with a 100-year flood event , which is the basis for the additional 2 foot of `freeboard ' to allow for an increased factor of safety . The potential for damage remains when larger flood events exceed the 100-year flood design levels of the elevated or floodproofed buildings , or where debris blocks drainage and increases flood depths and extents . This study did not examine the potential direct building and content losses from floods that exceed the 100-year flood depths and extents . The study assumes no direct building impacts from the 100-year flood to new development , though that possibility could exist due to errors in mapping and/or debris modifying the flow and impacts of floodwaters . Residual damages and indirect costs may still be incurred to conforming development during a 100 -year flood event . These include direct social losses ( public safety impacts ) , as well as direct and indirect economic losses . Losses will be distributed among the community , including individuals , businesses , and the City . While it is not possible to quantify some of the future impacts due to a number of unknown variables , some of the impacts can be estimated with knowledge of the extent , type and location of proposed development and knowledge of the flood hazards including flood extent , depth and time of inundation . Residual damages associated with new development that could be expected from a flood are listed below . The asterisk (* ) indicates those damages that may be estimated quantitatively , as discussed in the methodology section that follows : Potential public safety and health impacts • Risk to employees • Risk to customers • Casualties • Emergency services time , resources and personnel risks o Evacuation and rescue costs AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 6 Revised Draft 7 of 37 Economic Losses ( related to length of time facility is inaccessible or non -operational ) • Capital - related income loss* o Loss of services/sales due to restricted access to businesses o Net loss of wages • Displacement costs * o Costs for temporary relocation o Business disruption costs o Rental income loss (to building owners ) Physical damages • Debris removal costs • Cleanup costs • Dewatering costs • Parking lots • Landscaping • Vehicles • Equipment or materials stored outside the premises • Utility damages — repair costs and disruption costs o Sewer o Water • Buildings o For floods exceeding the 100 -year flood flows or where manual closure of floodproofing shields cannot be implemented due to rapid onset or flooding during off- business hours . • Contents o For floods exceeding the 100 -year flood flows or where manual closure of floodproofing shields cannot be implemented due to rapid onset or flooding during off- business hours . • Infrastructure damage from flooding and erosion o Road repairs o Bridge repairs o Bike path repairs Methodology FEMA has developed methodologies and standard assumptions to estimate displacement and income related losses from floods . These methods and standards are used in FEMA's benefit cost analysis modules for estimating the ` benefits , ' or losses avoided , associated with a hazard mitigation project , or used to estimate flood damage within HAZUS - MH . Table 3 shows examples of the typical values for displacement costs associated with various commercial and industrial buildings used within HAZUS- MH . These values can be applied to estimate losses to proposed development with knowledge of the occupancy type and approximate square footage of the development . Other costs such as debris removal , cleanup , and emergency services can be estimated based on costs associated with past events . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 7 Revised Draft 8 of 37 Table 3 Example Flood Displacement Costs Based on Building Type Bullding Type Displacement Costs [A] [ B] HAZUS- MH MR3 Rental Cost Disruption Label Occupancy Class ( 2008 ) Costs ( 2008 ) "21month $ ,ft. Residential RES1 Single Family Dwelling 0 .73 0 . 88 RES2 Mobile Home 0 . 51 0 . 88 Multi Family Dwelling ( All Types RES3 includes duplex to 50 + units : 0 . 65 0 . 88 RES4 Temporary Lodging 2 . 19 0 . 88 RES5 Institutional Lodging - 0 .44 0 . 88 RES6 ! Nursing Home 0 . 80 0 . 88 Commercial COM1 Retail Trade 1 . 25 1 . 17 COM2 Wholesale Trade 0 . 52 1 . c21 COM3 Personal and Repair Services 1 .46 1 . 02 COM4 Professional,'Technical/Business 1 .46 1 . 02 COM5 Panks 1 . 82 1 . 02 COM6 Hospital 1 .46 1 .46 COM7 Nledical Office/ Clinic 1 .46 1 .46 COM8 Entertainment and Recreation 1 . 82 0 . 00 COM9 Theaters 1 . 82 0 . 00 COM10 Parking 0 . 36 0 . 00 Industrial IND1 Heavy 0 . 21 0 . 00 IND2 Light 0 . 29 1 . 02 IND3 Food/Dru s/Chemicals 0 . 29 1 . 02 IND4 Metals?Mineral Processing 0 . 21 1 . 02 INCF Hi h Technology 0 . 36 1 . 02 INCr, I Constructton 0 . 1 F 1 . 02 Source : FEMA Benefit cost analysis reference guide , 2009 A separate economic impact study was used as the basis for estimates of the occupancy classes and amount of square footage for proposed development . This study was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems ( EPS ) , Inc . in December 2010 with the intent to estimate the economic impacts from floodplain regulations and associated building restrictions . The same four study areas along the Poudre River were analyzed by EPS . The EPS estimates of square footage for commercial and office development was based on developable parcels that intersected the floodplain and were taken from Table 2 of that study . Some of these parcels may be partially , and not wholly , within the floodplain . For the purposes of this study it is assumed that all new building square footage is located within the floodplain . The EPS study compared the ( re )development potential of each study area under three identified options that correspond to options related to floodplain management regulations : • No change option = No changes to existing floodplain regulations • Redefining the floodway definition to a 1 / 10`h foot rise ( Option 1 ) • No structures within the 100 year floodplain (Option 2 ) The no change option allows the most potential for development , the floodway change option ( Option 1 ) is more restrictive , and the no-structures in the 100 year floodplain option (Option 2 ) is the most restrictive on future development . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 8 Revised Draft 9 of 37 The analysis of losses to future development investigated the 100-year flood impacts only . Impacts associated with lesser but more frequent events ( 10 and 50 year floods ) are not estimated as the EPS report analyzed development in the 100-year flood hazard areas only . It is assumed that disruption costs would be associated with new development from the 50 year events , but they would be of a smaller magnitude due to shallower and less extensive floodwaters . This study assumes proposed development is floodproofed , thus downtime will primarily be associated with the time the buildings are inaccessible during the flooding and post-flood cleanup . Displacement downtimes are typically much longer (and costlier) for commercial buildings that have not been floodproofed due to the time needed for repair and clean up from the flooding . A 1988 U . S . Army Corp of Engineers hydrology report for the Poudre River estimates that a 100 year flood along the Poudre River in Fort Collins will rapidly peak within 5 hours of the flood onset and continue to have flood flows in excess of 12 , 000 cfs for 7 hours . The total elapsed time from flood onset to return to baseline flows is estimated to be 17 hours . For the purposes of this study a 48 hour (2 day) downtime is estimated to allow time for debris removal and cleanup . The EPS study summarized development potential into commercial/ retail and office categories . These categories were associated with the equivalent HAZUS occupancy classes as shown in Table 4 so that the appropriate displacement cost factors could be applied (see Table 3 ) . Further classification was not possible due to unknowns associated with the specific types of future development . New residential development is not allowed in the floodplain per local regulations and thus not analyzed . Residential development indicated in the EPS study is located outside of the floodplain . Loss types and assumptions are described in more detail in Table 4 . Table 4 Potential Development Losses and Assumptions Loss type Explanation and assumptions Flood Disruption Disruption costs based on HAZUS values for one time disruption costs ; EPS Comm ./Retail — Used HAZUS value COM1 — Retail Trade EPS Office — Used COM4 — Professional/Technical/Business Rental income losses rental costs of $ 1 . 25/sq ft/month or $0 . 042/sq ft/day for Comm/Retail ( HAZUS COM 1 ) $ 1 . 46/sq ft/month or $0 . 048/sq ft/day for Office ( HAZUS COM 4 ) , based on HAZUS values multiplied by 2 days Capital income loss - retail Estimated annual retail sales from EPS report divided by 365 to calculated average daily sales , multiplied by 2 days Sales tax reductions Reduction in sales tax revenue , based on the calculated reduction in capital income multiplied by the City' s 3 . 85% sales tax rate ; Sales tax reductions are not accounted for in the HAZUS income related losses associated with the existing development analysis . Flood Displacement Analysis Results Table 5 displays the results of the flood displacement loss analysis . Results are shown by the three floodplain regulation options and the four Study Areas . The table also includes the total AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 9 Revised Draft 10 of 37 damage losses from the existing development analysis to present a comprehensive damage estimate . Income related losses include four primary flood displacement costs , which are similar to the HAZUS income losses , with the exception of the sales tax loss reduction : • Flood Disruption • Rental income losses • Capital income losses • Sales tax reductions A more detailed table with the breakdown of the square footage estimates and detail on the displacement losses can be referenced in the appendix . Table 5 Summary of Potential and Existing Damages from the 100-year Flood Total Future Total Existing and Future Future Development Debris Damage Future Building Contents Income- Removal Existing Development Option Damage Damage IRelated Loss Costs Development Losses Study Area 1 No change N/A N/A $ 478 , 980 $ 56 , 280 $ 1 , 537 , 289 $ 2 , 072 , 549 0 . 1 floodway (Option 1 ) N/A N/A $ 419 , 322 $ 56 , 280 $ 1 , 53712891 $ 2 , 012 , 891 No structures (Option 2 ) N/A N/A $ 547793 $ 567280 $ 11537 , 289 $ 11648 , 362 Study Area 2 No change N/A N/A $ 8257770 $ 27680 $ 1 , 396 , 565 $ 2 , 225 , 015 0 . 1 floodway (Option 1 ) N/A N/A $ 710 ,463 $ 2 , 680 $ 1 , 396 , 5651 $ 2 , 109 , 708 No structures (Option 2 ) N/A N/A $ 460 , 189 $ 2 , 680 $ 1 , 396 , 5651 $ 1 , 859 , 434 Study Area 3 No change N/A N/A $ 397 , 807 $ 2 , 680 $ 1 , 645 , 398 $ 2 , 045 , 885 0 . 1 floodway (Option 1 ) N/A N/A $ 318 ,425 $ 2 , 680 $ 1 , 645 , 398 $ 1 , 966 , 503 No structures (Option 2 ) N/A N/A $ 1177302 $ 27680 $ 11645 , 398 $ 11765 , 380 Study Area 4 No change N/A N/A $ 87 , 048 $ 2 , 680 $ 36 , 621 $ 126 , 349 0 . 1 floodway (Option 1 ) N/A N/A $ 877048 $ 27680 $ 36 , 621 $ 1267349 No structures (Option 2 ) N/A N/A 0 $ 27680 $ 36 , 621 $ 39 , 301 The no change option is assumed to be the least restrictive floodplain development option . Thus the future losses to proposed development with this option are the highest of the three options . Totaling the future 100-year flood losses across all study areas within this option yields an estimated $ 1 . 78 million in flood disruption costs , assuming the two -day downtime interval . Totaling potential loss for existing and future development for this option yields $6 . 4 million for the four study areas . In all options Study Area 2 has the potential for highest losses to future development , followed by Study Area 1 . The losses estimated by this study are partially dependent on the length of disruption . A two day disruption period is estimated , based on the Corp study , but disruption time may vary depending on debris generated and other priority cleanup needs elsewhere in the City . It is possible that the disruption period in some areas could be as long as 7 days . A disruption period of 4 days would double the losses represented in table 5 . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 10 Revised Draft 11 of 37 Other Impacts — Debris removal Debris removal estimates for the four study areas total $ 64 , 320 , as shown in Table 5 . The College Avenue railroad bridge over the Poudre River within Study Area 1 has the most potential to be impacted by debris than the other study areas . Debris removal efforts are estimated to require a crew of 5 working 24 hours a day for 7 days following a flood event . This is an estimate based on discussion with the City Maintenance Supervisor . Other Impacts — Populations at Risk While a new business or office building may be floodproofed , employees and customers will need to be evacuated in the event of a flood . In the best case scenario there will be adequate warning to allow evacuation of persons and vehicles , but floods in Colorado often occur with very little warning time . The increased likelihood of people in a flood hazard area ( i . e . building occupants , customers at businesses ) puts additional strain on first responders and limited emergency resources . The table below provides an estimate of employees that may be present in floodprone commercial and and /or office buildings should development occur as projected by the EPS economic impact study . The estimates come directly from the EPS study , where they used a factor of four employees per 1 , 000 sq . ft . of commercial/retail development and three employees per 1 , 000 sq . ft . of office development . The same factors were applied to estimate employees currently in flood - prone commercial development . The results are shown in Table 7 by study area , which total to an estimated 884 employees across all four study areas . Assuming the no change option , the projected total of existing and additional employees within the floodplain could be on the order of 4 , 913 persons . Table 6 Estimated Additional Employees within the Floodplain No Change 1 0. 1 Floodway (Option 1 ) No Structures ( Option 2) Comm ./Retail Office Totals Comm ./Retail Office Totals Comm ./Retail Office Totals Area 1 605 341 946 511 321 832 36 86 122 Area 2 660 1 , 234 1 , 894 567 17062 1 , 629 328 736 1 , 064 Area 3 420 535 955 303 470 773 0 315 315 Area 4 0 234 234 0 234 234 0 0 0 Total 1 1 ) 6851 2 , 3441 4, 0291 17381 2, 0871 31468 3641 1 , 137 1 , 501 Table 7 Estimated Existing Employees within the Floodplain Commercial Development (Sq ft ) Employees Estimated Area 1 811091 324 Area 2 361685 147 Area 3 94 , 199 377 Area 4 81953 36 Tota I 1 22099281 884 Summary The four study areas along the Poudre River as developed are prone to losses from flooding , with the greatest potential for loss at Study Area 1 due to it being the most developed . The potential for losses to future development will be primarily associated with disruption costs . Study Area 2 has the greatest floodplain development potential and thus the damages associated with future development in this area would be accordingly higher. While difficult to AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 11 Revised Draft 12 of 37 quantify the specific impacts , the potential exposure of additional people to flood risks associated with new development should not be underestimated . Other damages not quantified in this study include parking areas , landscaping , utility lines and infrastructure impacts . The losses associated with future floods on the Poudre River in Fort Collins to both existing and future development will be shared by the City, individuals , and businesses . AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc. Poudre River Flood Damage Study 12 Revised Draft 13of37 APPENDIX AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc. Poudre River Flood Damage Study 13 Revised Draft 14 of 37 Technical Documentation and Detailed Loss Tables The following worksheets are included in the attached spreadsheet : Worksheet 1 Inventory : The 149 buildings in the 4 Study Areas are listed with the following attributes : address , property type , year built , building value , contents value , latitude , longitude , building type , and building and contents damage functions used . Worksheet 2 100yr Analysis : % building and contents damage , $ damage and total damage from the 1 % annual chance ( 100-yr) flood event are reported by building for each of the Study Areas . Worksheet 3 50yr Analysis : % building and contents damage , $ damage and total damage from the 2 % annual chance ( 50-yr) flood event are reported by building for each of the Study Areas . Worksheet 4 10yr Analysis : % building and contents damage , $ damage and total damage from the 10 % annual chance ( 10-yr) flood event are reported by building for each of the Study Areas . Worksheet 5 Damage Curves : Percent damage by flood depth for structure and contents are listed for each of the following damage curves : - Commercial , average retail ( COM1 ) - Residential , one floor / no basement ( RES1 ) - Residential , one floor / with basement ( RES1 B ) - Residential , mobile home ( RES2 ) AMEC Earth & Environmental , Inc . Poudre River Flood Damage Study 14 Revised Draft 15of37 o n w P � rn o0 o ado LO ti N Le) Le) n r M N cq C 3 M N V 00 V LO COO M E Z r r C6e3 (!9 (iT (fT to (D O) CO o O M W M N t CMO M O O � 000 0 0 O 1` 00 N LO h N CD LO co 00 C N NCl O N r O M M r� O h (9 (9 N M N CO) N N N O 00 M Nqqt R Z O- (LT 6c3 (R (fl (fl (A W W (H (iT 09 (R (R (R (A a O ZT Ln O O rn O (O N 00 LO LO O N O O 00 W CO LO N � 00 00 O (.0O O fl 1` co ti ((.0O (.0O N � LO � NM O LL Ku N C w h .4 0O O � O V LO (D (D LO M Z E 3 (b tr N 6) 0 W M W O 6) M O Q z r N V EA ER ER ER fR EA EA EA CA 64 EA EA UA EA 6% EA ER ER ER fR ER ER ER EA ER ma M 00 0 N CD O S CD N M LO00 OO Q t0 h Cl7 O O M IT N (n Nt Le) N 00 Cl M O M n CD0 r r r 00 M N O N O U O M n 0 Ol Z r Cy0 r C tq (A V) tq (R m u l- OODD M a p co LO O M 00 Cn M M t0 O W 00 co W r (U U O 0 0 N 01 O r co LO 00 (O 00 le M O � a 0 N M N O N D7 0 O Ln Nt CO 00 00 0 O0. m 3 cn 00 l� i0 00 LO O O LO 0) � (M O O LO � CT r- n CT (9 (O N a : CO co r M M M I� co O O h y O - co 0 1� O LO a) M it LO N N O N (M LO M CD 0) 00 NM 1� O O N N � 1� u! a r (9 LO N O � N rh 00 N M O O v CD (D 00M v Ih 00 rh 00 r p 2 (jl _ Af� CO M00LO N (fl M (fl � (A (T 00 O 0 > O E N V LO LO LO (T O V Ln 0) L() � N L() O 00 (fl (fl M M 00 M N 00 O QE z M N to CO M W N M h L ) a � EA ER ER EH tq EA EA EA ER (t7 EA EA EA EA ER Efl Ef3 ER ER tq EH EH EH EA fR (n o a) 0 QLLn00ov 000 rn Q v Q m 00 r N O N 0) 1� 00 O (O E Q (n (O M 00 N 00 LO h h M m E CO n 00 n O O 1` N O 00 00 3 N O N N C) qe 00 M to P a O Z r 60 to 6s (A O OO 6 0 L LL u li O V O N (fl Do 00 M O 1� 00 O 00 00 r 00 > LO (7 O O CT w 0) I� ti CD N N (O 00 M I� r V QI Or ,. 1� 00 w M Nt 00 0) CD LO � CD (D 0) (O O ) M 00 00 00 LC) O (o O O 00 � � T C31 P� n (O N r V •— Z r V M W O 00 >. O Ol U) Q m C 6c3 6c3 to (fl (fl (A W W (A 6c3 6c3 (R (R (R 40 � m Q U 0 OM O TT N N � N r N LO 00 M O 00 (T (T ti M 00 N LO M (y Q .. _ O rh Ln O M O 00 O 0) M � OD (D qt 1` 00 M M � M r Z E LO C(O O N r� (Ni (9 (9 N (M C � L(7 CD (Ni Oo V (Ni 00 N LC) LC) V 1P 06 I� LO Cn M LO (O N (fl a) 0') M r� r E N M M r M 01 Y Z O � O 0! GG (f3 (f3 GG tq (H (H (H (A 64 (f> (f> (f> (f> to Ul GG GG GG Aba ua ua ua (H Ei) W N C a y 8 LL Q r O N 0 M O qe O i O D R U m U m U R U Q U N i C i C C i C Q C U C vQ 01 vQ� Ol vQ� 0/ vQ� 01 v�� 0! � U a� U (D U a) U a) U (D NL Q L Q L Q L Q L Q E a C N N ' N N_ C N N / V) C n N N U) C (n N CD N_ C (n N ch V) N C O O U N (n O U N (n O m U y (n O O O U N (n O O U y (n O o .5 LL ° ° Ea _ ° Eaaiv ° EaaiaE' ° oEaW ° oEa w L �+ a .0 a) (D O y 0 ,0 � � (] y (.� ,� � (U O y (.� .0 � a) � y (.� ,� (D � O y (U > aa) m Q E o c (a a E o c m m Q E o c (v m Q E o c m m a E o c m 06 /y a o ._ E a o E a o ._ E a o ._ E c o ._ E 6t.+ R E V) L U U (0 L U U V) L U U V) L U U (0 L U U v) L CL N M v a rn c .�_ x 7n p (n c .c x O N �_ .� m Yn p (n c .�_ m 7n p N c .� til iO y� y� yy yy C) Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W o W 00 M M * * > m m m m (�g o o .Q aNi o o .Q o o .Q aNi o oLU .Q aNi o o .Q a U o ar a� a� a� a� O o O E m m o ° O a) m m o ° O m m m o ° a) m m o ° O w m m o 0 d 0 Q Q Q Q H LL LL Q' U U) H LL LL � U Cn H LL LL Q' U (n H LL LL Q' U U) H LL LL Q' U co H (n Q 16 of 37 } O +J N = E c = O m O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n U ❑ W O m W m O N O m O m 0 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 O O N O O) O N 0 0 0 m 0 m O O N N N N 1 Ol G) O a ED O R r+ 'a E ti (O r� r� r� P� ti r� ti r� ti r� ti r� ti r� (O r� ti r� LO � r� � r� � r� � r� LO LO LO LO m ❑ W0 CD CD CD Q CD CD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N k N N N N N N N N T J J p Z Z Z Z p Z Z Z ❑ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ❑ Z ❑ Z Z J Z Z Z Z Z Z WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOw000000 mwn � WWWWWWWOW 2222 � � 22 � 2222222 � 22222 < O < < n < < < < < < 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O o O O o O o o O o 0 0 0 o O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 O (O r� O CO O M O � O M O M r� O W N (O �t r� (O � � GO 0 � � 0 0 (O M M 0 0 0 N N M � M M � N M O GO � � M LO �t GO LO N N LO M P 0 (O r� P� � P� � (O 0 M N LO LO N O r� O M O O N O O N O N W M W M � GO O M W t N O N LO 0 �t M LO �t N O LO 00 N (O LO O O LO P� O 00 � (O 00 00 00 (O � O (N CO O O) CO M LO O N O O � � O � O � O � N LO 0 � LO N LO � M M N M O O M M LO (O O O O � O 't O M Nt M 0 � mt W O N r� � 't W N N O N N O N N M M M P� CO mt N CO O CO O N O O � � � O W LO LO M � LO � GO (O GO (O GO 0 r� � 't � r� N N (O M M M 0 (O (O (O � 't (O LO LO LO LO LO Nt � � � r� � � � ti � P� r� P� r� � r� � (N � � � � � � � r%� � r%� � � r� � r� � � r� 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO V) LO LO LO LO LO Ln LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO CO 0 0 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N V N O N M LO qqT M 0 00 O N M (O O 0 M N LO LO W (O CO OI�T MRCT N V MRCT N O M CO O P� N LO M N N m LO O O 00 00 O N LO O (O M V V M r� Or� LO O LO r� (O O E M M (O O L� 00 0 r� N m 0 0 0 O 0 00 O O O (O O 00 N MRCT r� O 00 O) O M IqRCT LO 0 N O � � M O) N LO N N 0 (O O (O N LO LO N N V LO O 00 N L� N O S LO V LO O M LO RcT IqRcT CO O O CO N CO 00 V 00 O O LO LO N O LO N LO 'qRcT 0 0) O M CO L� O M O O N L� 'q O) 00 CO LO V O CO 00 00 00 O N (O V LO LO O O M (O 00 00 L� O 00 LO ti 00 Mr� LO V V V V M (O L� O W O O LO LO LO LO LO LO 0 (O 0 00 L� 00 00 LO LO LO V LO LO r� LO LO 0 LO 00 O 0) (O (O 00 00 LO LO LO LO ti 00 O O O O O O O O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mo J V V V V V V V V V V V V V V Q V V V V V V V V V V V � V V V Q V V mo O O (O O O O Or� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Or� O 00 O IqqqT 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Iq O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O O O O (O O � O Iq O O N O O O O L) y O Oqzt O N O N W O O O O 0 O O O O O LO O O O O M O O O N M O LO LO 0 W (13 C LO LO O 7- 0 0 LO r� P� LO O (O O O O O O LO O 00 LO O NiN O Cr; LO Cr; N LO V- M M N M E y O LO (O O N N O LO O MM�r RT O O M O O RT O M (O N (O L� M O � qqT W qe O V (0 (B O (,) ; ba (f3 Ea (f3 Ea (f3 Ea (f3 ba (f3 d) (Abe (A ba (A ba (A ba (A ba (A ba (A ba (A ba (Abe (A ca (A ca (A ca fR to mo O O 0 0 0 O O M Or� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O tir� O 00 O � qqT O O O O N O 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO O O O O O O O O O O (O O O P (O O N O O (O O LL O O IN O N N O N 00 O O O O (O O O O O O O O O O L� M O O O N M O 0 0 0 L LO LO �2 O 7-:� 0 0 LO r� P� LO O (O O O O O O LO O (O LO OIci P� N O Cr; LO Cr; N LO � r� ti LO L� O LO N O N N O LO O M � qqT O O L� 0 0 � 00 O M (O N (O L� M O M 00 N 00 > V N � (O m > H) ( O (/3 64 (/3 64 (/3 69 Ef) 69 69 U9 69 U969 U9 69 U9 69 U9 69 U9ba ff3 ba (R ca U9ba U9 ( ca U9 ca U9ca U9 ca O) O O CA O V O CA M LO O N O O LO ICT RT 0 0) O M (O O O O � ti (O Or� O O LO (O (O O (O 7 r� r 00 M r O V 0 LO O H O (O 0r� tir� LO V O V (O (O V CO O R O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O a } m (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 03 M (0 N OS (0 (0 (0 (0 b (0 (0 03 N OS N OS M OS (0 OS N (a N (0 (6 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O1 N O N N N N N N N O1 N O N N O Q E E E E to E E E E E E E E E E E E E N E E f/1 E E E E E E E N f/1 N 7) T O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O O O O N N N N a H O O D U U of U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Of U U U Of U U U U U U U U � of � of . � of U U = _ _ (n U) W W W W W W W W W W W W W p ❑ > > > > > > > > > > > > > C N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O W W W W W W W W W W W W W �+ 00 of of of (If of (If (If Of (If Of (If Of (If Of (If _ � N p p p p p p W W ❑ W W W W ❑ ❑ p ❑ p ❑ W ❑ ❑ ❑ W W W W ❑ ❑ W W ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ "O "O W W W W W WJJ J J W W WLU JJ J J W W W W � _ C: Z Z Z Z Z ZOO 000O Z Z Z Z Z Z ZO Z Z ZOOOO Z ZOO Z Z Z Z N,� m m - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - N J J > > > > > > U U > U U U U > > > > > > U > > > U U U U > > U U > > > > E _ .0 .L) W W W W W W Z Z W Z Z Z Z W W W W W W Z W W W Z Z Z Z W W Z Z W W W W CO ( ma - M co r� LO LO LO 't mt M 00 O � M M M M M M N M O N N O 00 N N 0 � ma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 O O M N M N N 0 0 0 00 Q N I� M M M M N N N N N N I� N N N O W O O N N d1 CO � ^� W � d 06 ❑ LO (O 0 W O O N M I LO Or� 00 O O N M V LO Or� W O O N M I LO Or� 00 O O (Q N N V V V V LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO O (O 0 (O 0 (O 0 (O 0 (O L� r� ti r� ti r� ti r� ti r� 00 w i w 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (� _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL1 0 01010 010 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 11111111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL U U U UUU U U (.) U U U ( U U ( ) ( ) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Q 17of37 N O +J +O+ U a) E C 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ❑ W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y O) G) a � O � r+ ti ti ti ti •� R 7 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m ❑ W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N >, J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z � w O O O O O O w O O W O w O O O O O O O 0 0 0 a Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M LO (t M CO M � r r M r (O r W O M N N 0 0 M CO N � LO LO M r 't r Lf) r � M M M LO LO M O r r CO M N N LO r r M 0 � � � 0 M 00 O O 0 LO 0 M r L O CO O 0p N r (t O N 0 N r � r M (0 L(') M O M O 00 0 LO CO O O 00 M M r N O N M � O r M W M N M N 00 M CO 0 0) LO M M r N w O) (O r � Lf) M 00 00 M O (t LO N M M m O LO r � MN L O O 00 M ti (D ti r0 CD Ln CD � Ln N N r' M co N � (O O (O O co O O (O (O (O (fl (O (O (O (O (O O N O O co (O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO LO LO LC) LO LC) LO U') Lf) LO LO LO LO LO u7 LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o r (O Lr) M r 00 qqt LO N W O LO r� q�T W r � q�T r� N M M 00 O W O O V O M M O r r r� LO 0 0 0 N W Iq r N O O W Lf) W M O � M N r V N W M r LO M V O W O O O M w M Lf) M N nt (O V (O O O O O r O r N (O O r Iq LO M r� M 00 � (fl N M V N M N rr� (O V W r O N O (O r O M � W LO Mqqt N M M Iq r O 00 r M W M O M w LLB LO (D 00 LO LL) w w w w r� w m w � LL) LO q�T q�T r� (D w LO LO 00 LO 00 LO 00 LO LO LO LO 00 LO 00 LO 00 LA W) O O LO ao LO L(') LC) LSD Lf") LLB Lf") LSD Lf") 11) LO 11) LLB L(') LC) L(') Lf") Lj� Lf") Lf� Lf") LSD Ln L(') � .., 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J V V V V V V V Mt nt Mt Iq V V V V V V V V V V Iq O O Lf) O O O O M M M N O O M O LO O O O O O LO W W O O O O O O O O O r O qq M 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 (O M 0) y l Lf) (= LO Lf) LO Lf) O LO LO N (0 O LO CD � O 00 00 (D V (B C O) O � O N O O V 0 0 0 L6 P� r� L(') (O LLB Lf) LLB Lf) N r L() E w r � CO q�T r� V 00 00 N CO r� (O Lf) V M 00 a) r co r Q O N U (s (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» e3 (» e3 (» (» (» (» (» (» (» e3 O O (0 O LL) O O O O co co co N O (D M O U') O O O O O LC) 00 CO O (O O O O O O O O r O RT M 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 (O M LL zm V LLB O u LLB ul LLB O U) Ln N (O (O Lf) Or� O O O O O O V L O) O � O N O O q�T 0 0) 0 L6 r� r� L(') (O LLB Lf) LLB Lf) N r Ln a) r r� CO � qzT � r� q�T CO 00 N CO r� (O Lf) V CO 00 > '(f a) r M r n/ co > (s (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (s (» (s (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (s a) LO M M M (O rn rn (0 rn rn r rn v v rn v rn rn rn rn LO M r� L a+ (0 r� r� P� CO � � O r� r� 00 r� O (D r� r� r� P� r� P� (O r� 00 ^O R 0) CY) CY) (Y) CT) C)) /01 C)) CT) CY) M CY) (D CY) 0) Cy) a) 0) a) 0) a) 0) 0) LL } m LO 03 (0 03 (0 03 N N N N N 03 (0 03 (0 03 (0 03 (0 N N 03 (0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U L i L i L i L i i i i i L i L i L i L i i i L L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 Q E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E L >40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a H O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O U O O O O O U O wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww » » » » » » » » » » » > ¢ QQQ ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ O zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz _ 00000000000000000000000 (B yzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZzz aa) (n J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J E 00 M r r r r O O O O O O N O 0 000000 Q r r r r r r N CO M CO M CO Coin r r� I r� � >4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W 06 ^� W � d L ❑ r� r N MqtT LO 0 � 00 O O r N M V LO 0 W O O r N (Q (n — N M 00 M W W W W 00 W O O O O O O M O M O O O O w r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N U L .>`, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 O V 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 101 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 w M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 U U U U U U U U U U U Q 18 of 37 CO ZM O +J +O+ U N E C N 0 M 0 0 O O � V � V O V � V � V � Vq�t VI;t nt � V � O � V � 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln U ❑ U. rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn a) G) 0 a O ti ti rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ti ti ti ti r 0Q 00 0Q 00 r 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 r 0Q 00 0Q r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m ❑ U. N N N N r r r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z H O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O J o 0 J O J O J J J J J J J J J J -aw � � OU) v7U) O OWWWwOOwWwWwwwwwwwwww coU)2 < < < � � � � � � � � � 22E22223:222E n n n n n n n � n 0000O0O00000O000000000O000000000O0O000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O It MLO MIt LO N N N N M O M N N O N 00 r 0 N " M 00 0 L r O O � M N LO r M r 00 ID 00 In (O 00 M N I� 00 LO LO It " O r N In 0) I M M N M N � M O LO N N r O r LO M r � 0) � LO N M O M (O � O M � M r N O L M N N r M O M O r M CD d t N r M N rf M r r N 00 LO � r (0 LO r M I LO O O In r Nt M r N 00 O N r r N M LO O (M N O M 0O M r � CO N 00 N f M dD M N O � � N M M CD M r LO M M (O N N M M N N m N 01 (M N M LO O 0 N O 00 CO N N r M N CO N r M M r O d1 � Lf) M O M (O M 00 � N M LO N N N N N N m m co Mt w O w M O O co w M w w 00 M O CO O V M dD M M � r I� M O N Mn 01 O N O LO r r r r r r 01 M co LO 0O O M m m O m m M m M m m m m O n m (O m m m m It 00 00 N Mt co (O N O M m m m m m co m � M co Mn CO M co M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M co M M M M � � � MS) � co Mn LO Mn M M M M M M co M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 LO In 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 LO Lh CD 0 LO In 0 0 LO 0 0 LO «) 0 LO «) 0 LO 0 LO In 0 LO In 0 CuLO 0 0 0 0 0 LO In 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M Ln r CO 0) MN 0 Ln MN N M Mf7 Ln I� r (00') M M M (0 r r M N N O) O 0 O 00 I� 00 NO) LL) (D r 00 M 0 � O m M CO I� O O (O M O M (D I� 0) r r ( M M (O 0 O (O Lr)r N M 00 O O O O O (0 0) N M M r (O Mf) � V O V (0 O M M N 00 V 00 (O M (O (O LO N (D (D r 0) r O O (O (0 00 (V r r (O O O M N M LO O M r N L M I� (D O (0 N O 0O LO O O LO I LO r LO L N (O 0 O O CO 0 (O 00 O (O 0 O 00 00 (0 M CO L (O L() 00 O N 0) LO t 0) (O I CO (0 (O M 00 0 00 00 V r LO N Mf) r LO Ln O O I� CO 00 N Y M!") COM O CO M M N 0) V r r� N r (O r 0) N O M r W O C) M 00 O m m qqTm N O m M 0 O m M O r m m m N O O N m r M m N 0 O M I) r (O r N M N r 0) 0) m O O O O O 0) 0) 0) O O O 0) O O O O O O O O O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) O O 0O 0O 00 0O 00 r� LO 00 r� LO r� LO r� LO 00 00 I� LO r� r� r� W) r� W) r� 00 IJO 00 00 m0O m0O m0O m0O 00 0O Ir) r� W) lLOLn LLOLOLn LO Lf") Ln LO Ln LO Lf") 11) LO Ln LO Ln Lf") Ln LO 11) LO LC) Ln Ln Lf) Ln Lf) Ln Lf") Ln Lf") Ln Ln L(') LO L(') Ln L(') LO L$) Ln LS') Ln Ln Ln U) O O O 00 (0 co (O (D O (D (O (D (D (fl (O (D (O (D (O (D M (fl (D O (O (D (O 00 00 O O O O O V O (D O N O w N N O m N O (D (D (O 00 (D (O (D (D (D (O (D (O (D (O (O M (D (D O (O (D (O 00 00 O O O O LO O O O (00 � (D O 0) y (0 r� r r LO LO Ln LO O LO Ln LO LO LO Ln LO Ln LO Ln LO LO LO LO N Ln LO Ln O r O 0) MT O Ln O r� 00 00 r I�- N 00 O O m ti r 00 00 r r r r O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Lf) r O M r ti N O r ti r r r r 0) M O E N 00 O LO O V 00 r N N 0 00 (0 CO Iq f� N O O O N N CO co N N N V r� M r r r r r u o r U 64 (» (s (» ba (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» be (» (» (» (» (» (s (» (s (» (s (» (s (» (s (» (s (» 0 O O O 00 N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N 0000 0 0 0 0 0 RT 0 (0 O N O w N O m N O M M M M O M co M CO M co co co co co co co M M O M co M 0000 0 0 0 0 LO O O O (0 O r� (0 O LL (0 r� r r r r r r O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r Q r Q 0) NZT O LO O r� CO CO r r� N CO O O L P� r 00 00 M M M M O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r M M M Lf) r O M r P� N O r r� r r r r 0) M O 00 O LO O qzr qqT CO r N N 0 CO CO M NT f� N O O O N (N M > N M N N N V r� M r r r r r _ a m ; (s (R Ga 69 ba 60 ba 60 ba 60 Uf) (R ba e=3 ba (R ba W Uf) EFT Uf) (R ba 60 ba 60 ba 60 ba e=3 ba U9 Ga U9 Ga U9 Ga U9 d) 69 V) (i) (A EFT M 0) 0) O M co M co (O co M M M M M co M M M co co co M M M M O O O V 00 N0) NLO IDM 0) O) 0) M O 7CDLr) r� (O 00 00 00 00 U) w w m 00 w w w w w w w w m 00 w w w w CD (O CO O r� (O CDm 0) (O r� r� ti � ti � 0N r r r r r r r r r } m m il �+ i mi mi mi E E E E m E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m E E E m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m .0 .0 .0 .50 0 0 0 Z5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .50 0 0 Z Z Z5 .5 .5Z5 .5Z5 .5Z Z5 .3Z5 .3 .5Z5 .5 = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 EEEE 2E 2Q) Q) Q) Q) a) a) a) d) a) a) a) (DE 2EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEm o ME E E E E -0m mm E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E � C) ) C) 2i2i2i ) 2i2i2i2i2ii2iii � 000U �CL � c2 CEE20Ut00U00U r N CO LO (0 r� } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } p ♦, wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Q> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m _ � wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww c CO M M M LO LO LO r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r I� r I� r r M r LO r r r r r r L r CO CO N M co M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r M O r I� M N N CO N N N N N N �_ aLO CO CO N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r (O (O (O CO CO M r CO � r N CO CO CO CO co co r N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r N r r r N N N N N N N N T M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W 06 ❑ N CO V LO (0 00 O O r N CO V Lf") CO 00 O O r N M V Lf") CO 00 O O r N M V 00 0) O r N M V lf) CO W (Q N _ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0) O 0) 0) 0) O 0) O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r N N M M M M M M M M M W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r L . , O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (� _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W um 0 0 0 0 IS O IS O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IS O O O O Q 19 of 37 U4) ' O .� c E c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V V � 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U � � rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � � � rn rn rn rn � rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � L O O S W m U. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T J J J J J J Z Z Z Q Z Z Z Z J J J Z Z Z Z J J J 0 Z J p J Z Z J Z W w w w w w U 00 U p 00 00 W W W U 00 U W W W 00 W p w U U w U Q 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m cn 0 w 0 cn cn cn cn cn cn cn w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N LO M M 00 M O mt O LO N M M M 0 N M 0 M L O LO M N mt LO M N N 0 CO M LO N 00 O O N mt O� 0 M O N 0 LO mt O M O N N O M 0 LO 0 M 0 LO M M N O (fl O N O 6� N C I O M N O LO M O (T N am ( M M O O O M O N N M N M 1� m w N w N m M � M 't M LO CD � 00 OD N 't O M N N 00 � N M M N N N N N N N (T M M M CD M M CD N M M M (fl CD M M N M LO M (T O� (O � 0 M M It m It m It M M LO O M LO MIt CD m M O LO It m m m m LO LO LO N m m m M CD M CD M M M M M M LO � LO M LO M (fl (fl M M LO LO It M M M M � LO LO It M M MIt (fl It (fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M LO LO LO LO L() Lf) LO LO LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO 6 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO UD C 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 000000 00000 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V U ) V V CO N M N O r� V V CO N CO r� CO CO CO f� r� CO CO V CO r� CO LO O N E LO LO OqzT CO N N V O M 00 O 00 LO M 00 CA LO M CO CO CO CO V O V CO O N LO LO O Lr) (O N M 00 LO CO CO r� r N CO CO CO CO CO LO O 00 LO LO (O V M (O CO CO V f� r� r� CO CO LO CA CO r� O CO N I� 00 M V M V O M CO V r� V N CO (O N O M CO M LO r� O M (O M M N CO M M O O CO CO Mqtt O N CO M LO f� r M O c0 r� r (O co � V V co V V O CO f� O CO LO LO O N N LO (D (D N O N N LO M O m m m CA m O O O O O O r� r� m O O O O m CA m 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O r� O � f� � � r.� � r.� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r� 00 00 00 00 I� � � 00 00 00 00 00 � 00 00 00 00 00 co LO U') LO LO LO W) L() LO L() LO L() LO LO LO LO U') LO LO LO U') LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO W) w 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J (n IZI- coo N N V O m O N O O O O (O O O O CO (O CO 00 O O O O O O O LO O O O N O V (O m CA I� O m 00 LO LO O O O O I� LO LO O (O (O (O N (O V O LO LO O O N O O O w Rzz 00 LO O O (O O LO O (A CO O O r� CO 00 O LO LO LO O N CO CO 00 O O LO V O M O (� C w m O O O CA (O LO 00 r� N N LO LO LO T-1 M LO T-1 V O T-�' 00 LO LO LO r�: 00 LO (O LO O N N CO CO MqtT r� O (O CD V CO LO q M 00 N V m CO M (A Nq�T M M M LO N CO (O Q O U ; be ug e e=* ba e=* ba e=* ba e=* ba R (fl ug (fl ug (fl ug (fl ug ( a e=* ba R (fl ug ( a ug b 3 ug (fl ( g ba H3 O O � CO O N N V O M O I� N O O O O CO O O O N N N W O O O O O O O LO O O O L.L O Iq (O m m r� O m w LO Lr) O O O O r� LO LO O M M M N (O V O O LO O O N O O O qqT 00 LO O O (O O LO CA (A M O O 1� CO 1� CO Cl Cl) N (O CO O O LO 'q O CA O L c0 00 O O O (A co LO 00 r� N N LO LO LO T-1 T-�' M LO M M M V O T-�' 00 �7 LO LO P� 00 LO (O LO N N N CO CO MqtT r� O (O (O V 00 LO q M 00 N V CA 00 M CT) > NqtT CO M M LO N M (O 00 > bc) (» (» (O (» (» (» (» (» (O (» (» e3 (» (s (» e3 (» (s (» eq (» (» (» e3 (» (» (» (» (» (s (» (» (» m m m m m m m w w CD mCDmmnmNMLOMMMvCDmmnWLOIq Z3 O CO (0r� CDr� (O 00 00 00 00 I� CO f� M 00 r� ti r� CDp (A (A (A (A (A m F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F0 .5 F F Fu E E E 5 � i5 � � � F m i O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 2 E E E E T E E E E E E E o Q E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E i >� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d H0C) 0000U0U0UUU0U0U0U2 U 0 U C) 2 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 Q O N N = 00 M V CO o L � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � a„r W W W W W W W W W i W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W _ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J J J J J J J J J — J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J +- _ U4) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww � r� M O M LO LO LO M CO LO LO CO CO CO CO L � N N N N N N co N O N M CO CO N N O N N N N M 0 0 0 CO CO O CO � � � � ma co co co co co M CO I� � CO N CO N N N CO � CO I� � � � � mt 't N M N N N 00 LO LO U ) 'j Q N N N N N N � N N N N N N N N N N N N N � M co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co M M M M M M M M M co co co co co co co co W w L 06 L O O N CO V CO V LO CO r� CO CA O N CO V LO CO ti CO CA O N CO V LO CO f� 00 CA O (II (n — M 'zT Rt Iq qTqqT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N M �JJ CD CD CD CD 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () = O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m o o Q o Q o Q o Q o Q o Q o Q o Q o Q o 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q IL U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 20 of 37 LO } ZM o +J u N = E c C= O m = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n U ❑ w rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � ai a) c c o R u E/R ti CO w N IN IN IN N N N N N N N G. 2' Of Of of CDU) U) 0000000 m 2 2E 2E 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M T t M r� ti N M O M M N N co O LO r� CD S O O N T CD r T r� T M T r� LO M T M M CD r� Ozl- (0 O O u') LO N t O It CD O LO r� O It � IZI- M I N N u') Ln CD (D LO (D (0 CD (0 O m CD M N N M N N N N M N N O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Ln LO LO LO LO Lf) LO Lf) LO 6 LO O T T r T T T T T T T T J I I I I I I I I I I I CDCDOOOOOOOOO Q () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO M V q�T r� M IZIM N LO V M LO V LO (D r�S1 � M LO O (D r� T N T T Oq�T LO O mt (D M T O M LO N O M O CO N N LO T LO O W N (fl O N m LO N LO w r� LO O r� r� r�- CA V LO O IZIM q�T IZIM nt LO 00 It f%� (D (D r4� (D CO (D (D CD CO CD LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO MID . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J V V O (D T O O V W LO 0 M T N O (D r� O M O r� O O M w 0) y O N LO O T N T T M (D M (B C LO CO LO T T C6 N E LO cu +' a) O co Q N M (,) ; 63 Cf3 EA Cf3 (f3 Cf3 (f3 Cf3 EA Cf3 un) O O O CD T O O V CO LO 0 00 T O (D r� O co O r� O O co (n w O N LO O T N T T M CD M L. LO co LO T T CO T > p O O co N M m EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA ER R (A O CA O O O O O O O W a y 7 T T T T T T T T T T T } m (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (4 (0 (4 (0 U U U U U U U U U U U L L L L L L L L L L L L N N N N N N N N N N N a) E E E E E E E E E E E 0 Q E E E E E E E E E E E T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a H U U U U U U U U U U U Of of of of of of Of of of ry U U U U U U U U Z U U w w w w w w w w O w w a.+ a. CLa. CLCLCLCLa- d0- d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f o o G� ir. Of OfQ > 0 M M M d d = d d N _ � wwwwwwwwcnww E Q < CD (fl co CD co CD O (fl O (fl O � Q N N N N N N N N I T N N O ^� mtMtItMtItMt v v w 06 L fn Q t N ❑ LO O CO W O N N CO N N LO cu w T T T T T T T T T T T L . O O O O O O O O O O O (� _ O O O O O O O O O O O G V O O O O O O O O O O O w R O O O O 018101810 O O O O O O �j w U U U U U U U U U U U Q 21 of 37 0 0 0 0 f� N 7 7 N (O M M W M 7 f� f� f� N W N O f� 7 0 0 M f� O W M W f� W W M O u) Lf) O 7 Lf) CO O f� (O M O M 7 O (O Lf) Lf) CO f� CO 7 O 00 00 00 N 0 7 N 7 u7 ' ' f� W ' f� W M W M O M ' W 7 W O u7 O W 7 N W N N m M ul M O O CO N 00 O M W M N O O N O M r W M r V W M -�t O m N m O M N q 00 ul ul W W N ul r M -�T M M N W N N N O W O N Ln O Y w � He» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» E» E» f» f» e» f» f» f» e» e» e» f» f» f» f» e» e» e» e» e» e» f» E» E» e» e» e» e» to O 0 0 0 0 V V 00 W M CO M -�T O W N W M r O W M O M ul W N O ul N j M M M M O � O r W W W r N r W � N M r W m O m r V r M M r W N r f` r N r r W M � -�t V N O r M V M 00 O 00 N r V V ul N N (O 00 00 r N LO N Lf) (O (O (O � M Lf) (O M W 7 N Lf) W C 7 � Lf) N 7 N M 7 M W N W N N V- N M N N 7 7 7 LO N M f` 7 N N W W W O y O C a� M C E O U p 63 603 603 603 603 603 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 u3 u3 u3 e3 e3 e3 e3 e3 u3 u3 u3 u3 603 603 603 603 to O O O O co 00 (O 00 O N N (O N M N M M W W W O f� M 7 W M f� W f� 7 O n N M W 7 f� LO M O W W O N 0 7 f� f� N W M W O f� W O f� M W M W 7 W 7 7 W W 0 0 N M f� M W M M f� M f� M M O M f� W M W W f� f� O O) r M r r V (O (O N M O � N W N ul V ul (O � r N N V ul ul M N N M = y M M M M ul N N N V N cm W a m •5 E m e» e» f» f» e» e» e» e» e» e» f» f» f» f» f» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» f» f» f» e» e» f» f» e» e» e» e» w 0 0 0 0 0 LO M M 1 f� ' M f� 7 0 M W) N (O W M W ' m N 7 f� O f� W O O O O O O M W 7 7 N O f� O M N W O O M f� 7 M M W M W O M f� 7 M 0 0 0 0 ul O M M W LO W W ul N V N ul ul N M ul ul N N V M r N N O M C N N M f6 c E O m vo O O O O r W O O ' ' W O ' ul r W O M ul V V W M ' ul ul W ul M O O N r N O CN W V r O ul O co co N N m W W N W m V 7 7 7 7 N N CO N o_ cm N LO m mo m O U) M N 7 (D LO (D 7 ' M f� f� M 7 N W N N O N V M 7 M M M M 7 W 0 Q) LO M m W N M M m N u7 W f� M M W 7 W M 7 W L) O Q E O (B O (f) ul ul ul O M N 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 ul 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 W N O N O V O O GO O CO N CO CO W) N CO W) M O N 7 7 0 M W O M O O O O O W O LO f� f� LO 0 0 O LO LO W R 7 W 7 7 0 M f� W N W M M 7 O M M 0 0 7 7 M 0 m O N N O W LO O M LL > 7 W 7 n L w M a) C > C O U e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» (» (» E» E» e» e» e» e» E» E» E» e» e» E» E» E» E» E» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» u4 o N 0 0 0 0 V V O W O r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O M O O W O O w O y O W O O N O W V O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ul O O O O O O M O O O O V O O C` O O 0 0 O M N 0 0 0 M r 0 0 0 M O 0 0 0 0 W O 0 0 0 W N O N N O V O O a R f� Lf) f� f� Lf) N M Lf) M O N f� 7 0 W) (D O Lf) O O O O O W O Lf) f� f� Lf) 0 0 O u0 u0 N > W N W W O M f� W N W M M W O M f� O 0 7 7 M 0 u0 O N N O N Lf) O n c =a mUl eA eA eA eA !A eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA eA !A !A !A !A eA eA !A eA eA eA eA !A !A eA fA fA fA to N ly waf U U ww wwww w wwww ww U) U) >' > > » » > » » > > 66 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q cc ww wwww w wwww ww Wa) _ � � � � c7c7 � � c� c7c7c7 � � � c7 � � � � � � c7c7c7c7 � c7c7 � � � � � � 00 0000wwoowwww000w00000OWWWWOWWOOOOOo J J J J J J J J J J J J J y y W W W W J J W W J J J J W W W J W W W W W W J J J J W J J W W W W W W M M L y Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ O O Z_ Z_ O O O O Z_ Z_ Z_ O Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ O O O O Z_ O O Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z Z_ c c y > > > > U U > > U U U U > > > U > > > > > > U U U U > U U > > > > > > J J ca W W W W Z Z W W Z Z Z Z W W W Z W W W W W W Z Z Z Z W Z Z W W W W W W .0 U 7 0 N N 0 0 0 N N M M N M M M M M M O O O W 7 7 M M M f� M M S S ma m Q > C T p a C N Mmmmmmmm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmN 01010 � — — — — — — — — o — — — o — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o — — — — — „ W i i i i i i i i �"• i i i �"• i i i i i i i i i i i i i i �"• i i i i i �"' W c c c c N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 p_ y L 06 i >. N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 a F— af af af af U U U U U U U Uaf U U U af U U 010 U U U U U U U U U U W U U U U Ucu r N 00 M W r W W V M N O M W r W W V M N1(0) (0) M W r W ul V M N O M W r W W W O Y — W r r r r r r r r r r W W W W W W W W ul ul ul ul ul ul ul ul ul ul V V V V N N i W L > Q U O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 _ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > W 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 a O 00000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y LL U 00000000000 U U U U U U O 000000000000000001 Q 22 of 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I N 0 O LO 00 O) (O M O) O) (O W) 7 N N O) N 00 00 0 O) O (D LO 00 M O Mr� N LO O) 0 0 Ocm N R h (O OD OD O (O (n N LO OO }' N (,A (D O) � co N R V Y w L H (n (n v) v> v> v> v> (n (n v3 v> fH O LO N M LO (O (O co M r� co 00 q S V M N h V OD M V (O h (fl (O LO N (D OD O r 00 O LO W (fl � V N O lM (O W OO N O V OM / O } N r a0 R E Q U v3 v3 v3 63 fR EA EA EA v) 63 EA fA LO W (M (O M O N (M (M N f� 0) r� V O 0)O) (N N V m O) � 'CTC)O � 'CT V N M O 44 Im LO N Ih LO I;t CO O) OD co O _ � co M O R E N I LO LO W O I M i I LO 00 O G O O Nr� 0 (� O LO 00 O MI;t LO M Ih N V N OD � N (fl N V NM V N C N N O R c E O R Uo 00 r� r� LO LO 00 LO 00 ' ' ' ' V ' ' M 0 00 (0 6) CO (0 LO 00 N co O) (.O 7 W LO V O O LO V O \o o_ m a) r. LO R m O U) CO i M i I I I O N W 0) 00 N (O (0 Q) co LO O) LO 0 (M LO 0 0) M O O O N O N RCS O Q C cu CO O LO O O O O M M CO N 0 (0 CO O LO O O O O O Ln OD M O y 00 0 0 0 O O O O O O � O V M O O O O O O O O M M 7 ,ct LO O LO LO LO LO O M LO N O O LO O Ih 0 0 0 0 0 0 V R O O O N O O V O O O LP) LO (9 LO LO LO LO N LO CO ' � r� Mr� Vr� r� 'CTW W N M V O LO M lM CO qq LL L w N M a) > O U v> ca ca ca v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 ca v3 ca v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 40 (O O Ln 0 0 0 0 co M M N O (O M O LO 0 0 0 0 0 Ln OD m y 000 (D 00000) 00 � 0 'Rt M 00) 00000 (D M Co 0 7Ict LO O LO LO LO LO O LO LO N O (O Ln O h 0 0 0 0 0 0 V q a R O) O O N O O V O O O LO � [� LO (9 LO LO LO LO N LO OO > M � V V CO CO N CO r� (D LO V co co 44 V co M O N M C L5 mca ca ca ca ca caEf7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef3 Ef3 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 Ef7 v) N .;A V^ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W (Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J (Q 00000000000000000000000 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U L Nzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W r r� r r r r M M M LO r� r 0 r� r� r� r� r� r� 0 0 0 0 a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r� r� cu Q r r r r r r N CO CO CO CO CO CO M a) O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a) mu mT C T � a C N m aAW..,r a 5 -a m m m m m m m m m m m -a 5 -a 5 m m m m m N " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "T _ 2 3 w 0 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Z 0L>6 w E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EO _ T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)d H U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U N cu V/ I� 1(0) (0) LO O h 00 0 0 N CO' LO O h OO 0 0 N R Y NOD W ODOOOOW W MM00000000000 i w L T m o m m m m - N N N Q U 0 _ 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0000000000000000000 LJ,J0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO003U U 010 0101010101 U U U U U U U U U U U U V1 Q 23 of 37 _ _ c� N O N O O O CO f� O N M W O 7 0 70 I� (0 Q) O (D CO (0 O C) 7 O M 7 (D M r�. (D C) (D al� O (O M N M (O CO O M W M (. W (O O Lf) (O M CO N M M M r� W W 7 N N V 0) 0) M r� 0) M M M I� W r N W 7 W (D M r� 7 W N O V) A Y a+ L H U) U) U) OF U) OF U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U-) U-) U) U) OF U) U) O S(D O (D 0 7 O O L0 (n W O N(r) = 0 00 (D O N O N O � O � O (D ('M M 00 O 00 (n 0 0 (D N O O O O r� N 7 N 00 r� 0) N W (D Ih N 00 ' 00 00 00 f� M (D W W (0 u7 u7 �7 N O W C6 7 L (0 N L6 N L0 7 N 7 O 00 (M M (0 y N r N C ram+ f7 C E O U p d3 (n (fl 69 69 69 69 69 d} 643 (n (n V9 09 (n (n (n (n (fl (fl V9 CO O (0 O O O (D W M O M W It O M W O N O O � O L77 O 7 M O N CD rf) 7 0 N 7 0 7 0 O M r� W W W W N I� r r r N M W I� ' W 7 W O N MONO 7 (n NN (n 7 0 (D7 N I� C QJ (D M N CO I M M 7 al � A E m U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) w U) U) U) U) U) OF U) OF U) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D N (D N W W (D (D (D N N (D (D (D N (D (D (D 00 (D (() 7 (n 7 N (n N (n N 7 7 N N N 7 N N (n (D (n U) C N G) � C E O m U � O ' ' ' ' ' O O O O ' ' ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O O O ' O ' ' O O ' O O O O O ' ' ' ' O O O O CD CD O O O O CD CD O O O O O CD 0 C) O O O (0 7 (0 7 D) (0 D) (0 (Y) 7 7 (Y) (Y) (Y) 7 (Y) D) (0 00 (0 o_ al a T m 0 co 0) D) O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r� M I N I Ir� 0) 1 r� N W 1 N M O 00 N O w LO r� O LO (0 r� N M r� O N M 0) LO O 0) N LO .O " N N O N O N O O 6 6 O O O N M N (II s E °o v LL O Q O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O 7 O (D O N O W N 7 W ON N 7 0 M 0 r� No O O O W O O O W O O O O O O m O O O O O W N O O O O O O O O O O O M M O O W O r� W M 0 7 W O O r� O M W M (() O O O O r� M M O N W 7 O M O O N O O O (D rh � � O N O � O M 70 N O r� W W �_ r� N W 0 0 7 W M O O W O LOM M M O O r� M_ r� W O M N W M O O M 7 0 M O O f� W W O U) E O M r� N O r� M (M O W W O O O M (D U) W r� N N u7 u7 u7 M LO 7 C) W U) U) r� W U) (D LO R W M U) M 7 7 W � N N O W W M 7 r� N O O O N N M N N M M M 7 r� O (D (D 7 W LO 7 M W N 7 M W M M LL > M N N N 7 r� M N 7 (`') (M (M u7 N C') (O ^L� r � W\ C O U (S U) U) U) U) U) U) U)I U)I Ul Ul U) U) U) U) (n (n (n (n (n (n U) U) U) U)I U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U)I U)I (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n U) U) U) U) (n (n (n (n U) Ul L 0000000000000 0 0 0 7 0 W O N O W N 7 W O N N 7 0 M O h N 0 0 0 0 (D O O O W O O O O O O W) O O O Z3 y O W N 00000000000 (nMOO W Olh W M07 W MMf� O M CO NNOOOOr (LO LO ON (D 70N0 ON 0 0 0 O O (D rh n- n- O N 0 0 M 7 0 (n O r� CO W � Ir�- N CO 0 0 7 W M O O W O N M M (M 00 r�- M r� W O M N W M O O M 7 0 M O fa � W W O U) � O C') r� N O _ M C') O W W O O O M (D U) W [� N N u7 u7 L _ C') u7 7 0 W L6 u7 P, W wi (0 w > W M to M 7 7 W � N N O W W M 7 r� N O O O N N M N N M M M 7 r� O (D (D 7 W LO 7 CO CO N 7 M CO CO M co N N N 7 r� M N 7 l`') co co LO N M (0 C � a m (4 (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) (q (q (q (4 (4 (4 Q O I ,A r N M LO (O f� W M F 7 m •V/ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O O O LM WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwww a M M M M r� r r r r M LO r� M r O M LO LO LO M M LO N M M M M M M N N_ N M O I� M N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N M N O N M N M N N O N M O O O N N O M a �7 M M N (O (O (O M W M M 7 N M M (M (M M (M (M M (M (M (M (M M f 7 M N M N N N M 7 M f� 7 7 N N N N W �77 u7 �f'J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � � � N � N N N N N � � � N � � � N N N Co Co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Co Co Co Co M M M M M M M M M M M Co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M cO CD > ma A W L Q O N m m m m m m m m m m m m 5 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 5 m m m m 5 m m m m m m m m m m 5 m m m m 5 m m m > T L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 06 0 a E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E H U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U L V/ N CO 7 (n O (n M O N CO 7 W M O N M 7 LO co r� W M O N M 7 M 7 M W r� W M O N M 7 (n M O � N 7 M W r� W M O L U co W W W M O O N N M M M M M M M M M M 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N M L T 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U O ... O O 000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 W 00000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000 Q 24 of 37 0 vovvovvv0000 as 000o aItaa M a1 M f� w r� r� w r� r� r� w w w w r� 00 N 00 00 00 r� 00 00 N r0 N r N N r N N N r r r r N r (M r r r N r r L E Re (o N r fn) A Y a+ L fA fl-J fl-J fl-J fl-J fl-J fl-J fl-J Ul Ul Ul Ul (!T (!T Ul ul ul U). up) ca ca 6% O r Mr� r� Mr� r� r� M M M co r` co N CO CO co f` M M M S (0 N (fl (fl N (fl (fl (fl N N N N (D N O N N N (fl N N Iq r� vr� r� vr� r� [�- vvvv rnv Ovv vrnvv rn N y N (U r CMr� m C E O U m u3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 (» ua co 00 (o (o 00 (o (o (o 00 00 00 00 (o 00 (0 00 00 00 m 00 00 l0 r� � � � r� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� 00 � � � � � � (n 0) m O O (o O 0 0 (o (o (o (o O m N m m m O m m (D r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r r r M O OJ N m qe � A E m p (» w w w w w w w w w w w w Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N N O V r r r O r r V N V V N N V V V N N N N N N V N N M N N N V N N C N N Q1 C E O m U � 0000000000001001000100001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 coot mm7MMM7777 cov cove vmvv � (ov (0c0v (0 (0c0vvvv (ov r� aa vcovv a CM aj T m 0 co N (O LO O (O r r M 0 r� 7 r� ' 0) r� ' N (M N r (0 7 0 ) O w r W. O O r� O r� O W. r� N m O LO N (O M Lo M Lo O O r N O r r r 0 0 0 0 r 0 N O O O r 0 0 (II s °o v cz LL O Q M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O Q1 O y r9 (fl (fl (fl (fl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N r L(') Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 O O IQ r LO N L.L > W) ^L r (D 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O M y CO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CO O (n O > r Ol � C La CO (� (� (» (» (» (» U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» N = w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J L > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww L In LO LO r m t, M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M cO O � C � A W L Q O N EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uJ ++ w = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = x x x x x x = 0 v m 06 ) >, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o tn d H M L r` 00 0) r N M LO Co r 00 O O r N M V (D r` 00 (D r` 00 M y LU — W W W W M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O r r r N L L T O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r N N N N Q U O ... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >` LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M LL 0 0 0 01610 0 010101010 0 MOOS 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 25 of 37 O N (D 7 r� M CO V M O N M O 7 N M M N P� cm N CO M V M M r r M w 00 N M N V r t m 44i L Y 0 (!J EH EH ca En En to ca U). fH 6R. O O M w O M V O M M w Ln S M W M V M r 0 (O Ih (D N r (M C7 C. y N = 0) M a0 fM0 C E O U V3. to to to to 69 ER 69 1 tR fn I to O (M (M O r (M CO 1�- r LO 00 O N O O w M N N w N CO LO r M r N M N O _ c N a m E m UY ca U> tH tH tH 64 tH tH K! to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " o O O O O O O O O o LO LO w w LO LO LO LO LO w w w w w w w w w O M M c E 00 O O O O O O o o " o 00000000. o „1wwwwwww CO 0 r ml c m mo E m m m o N W N M M r w I�- ' ' N Q) N N V r (O N CO CO (O 0) O Q C LL cu 0 0 O (D r 00 'CT 00 LO 0 CO r Cl rn mo y 0 (D Ih O M O lh 0 0 00 M N 00 O O N LO O r N r r M (D M CO O 0 N co 117 O LO r M CCD D LL L w N M U N O N � C O U vjJ ER (H (H (H W. W. (H (H (H (H fR tH O CO r 0 0 V W CO O 0O r M M O y 0 w rh O M 0 r� O O 0O W N M 0 0 NCO O r N r r M (O (O M 00 a O (M M O M N (M Cn M mca EH EH EH EH EH EH 6q bq bq bq (A 69 J H N 0 00000000a00 a of of of of of aaoaa (� U U U U U U U U Z U U w w w w w w w w o w w = aaaaaaaaaaa � cn (n (n (n (n (n (n (na (ncn 000000000foo L W of of of of of of of Q of W u, aaaaaaaa = aa vwwwwwwwwwww L ruoor _ O O O O O O O O N N O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O CO (.0 Q N N N N N N N N r N N I 7 V V V V V V V V 7 7 a) E ma mT C T m a C u) Q 0 cm T L L L L L L L L L L L w ^, 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 00 W E E E E E E E E E E £ s 06 G� a Q. EEEEEEEEEEEm L T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a U U U U U 01010101010 v t i LO (O Ih 00 L w M O r N M LO L T r r r r r r r r r r r Q U _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 UM000000000ooY aUUUUUUUUUUUv, Q 26 of 37 O O O r� O N O 00 O O O O O O O I� O (n O (n h (n (n O d1 0 V N to O O O O (n (n 0) N to r� d1 r� 00 C j r� t� 00 O O O r� Ln Ln O qT O I� N M O r (M r (M h tm �7 �7 d1 O r, �7 M N is 0 N N (O r M V O d1 V 00 V N R O (n r r 0) N N (n r� LO LO LO LO (n M ru N 69 6c7 6c7 6c7 Hi H3 Hi Hi H3 6c7 H3 H3 H3 V- Hi H3 Hi H3 H3 H3 H3 69 O O O M O 00 0 0 N (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (!1 CN (!1 r O O co 0 N O r 00 (0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 f� u1 LO N LO M M f� O co 0 0 a0 M O O 00 O M � O V f� u1 r u'1 1� y r r f� M M L71 N r r 0 (r (r N r O M N r 0 O U) r C d 00 r 00 04 V V N r N r W Y CR O C 0000 0004O040 0000 O 00 fn 00 ( 10C If J I71 0 O (O O M V 00 O O O O NT L 1 00 Lf 1 r O 0 O r V V O O O O O M a0 O (O (O O V �f 1 M r V CO O CO O N co O to M O LO LO V V r V r- V O V r y N V N N r V r r M M LO M M 'O R E m (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» 69 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 " " 0 0 0 0 " O " " " ' O " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (O (O 00 M 00 (n (O (O N (0 N N N (O (0 00 N O (n (n (n N N (0 00 N 00 (n N V (n C V V N N (0 V (n V V V C N cm Y R C E O R U O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O Cl Cl O 0) O 00 M V to to 0) V to V V IZt 0) 0) 00 V M O O O �- N M N r r V V V V o_ O1 N C � 7 R m � � ++ O O O O 00 C) 00 N ' ' ' ' IO O N co ' ' I� ' ' ' ' ' ' ' � ' ' co CO 00 (n „ M 00 (O r 00 O 00 T 00 00 0)d) (O O M M (O I� co O 00 (O I� O O co 0 N (O N O O N O O M c- (0 (f) (f) Lr) 0) Q E N cu o 0 00 O "O O O ILL O LL 00 (O O O O O r�- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 � 0000 � � 000000 w L 0 0 O O O O 0) O O O O O O (n O O O O O O O O O O (O O O (O O N O O O O O 3 0 0 � O N r O r N 00 O O O O (O O O O O CD LO O O O O CO O O D N 0) O r (n (n (n (n 00 ; Ln (n r 0 O O is rl � Ls O (O O O O O O Ls O 00 (n O � � N O M Ls M N Ls M M N M CO > r 0 (n (O O N N O m O M O O M M O r M M (O N (O H M O (O V M yr rc0 rvr rn ri (U O O O d O CD to OOMO r� O O O O 00000000000 O I� � O 000T T 0000 NO 00 W O O qT 00000000000 (n O O O O O O O O O O (OO OqT (O O N O O (O Oh 3 0 0 lzl� O N N O r N 00 O O O O to O O O O O 0) O O O I� CO O O O N 0) O r 0 0 r O r (n (n r 0 O O (n r, r, Lx O (O O O O O O Lx O (O Lx O91 r, N O M (n M N (n � r, Lxi r, N > r 0 (n N O N N O m O co qT qT O O I� 0) O r CO 0) CO (O N (O I� CO O CO 00 N 00 n V r N r (O r V r r c C N m 69 GO GO EFT EFT EFT EFT EFT EFT GO GO EFT EFT 64 EFT EFT EFT GO GO EFT EFT EFT EFT EFT EFT GO GO EFT EFT 64 64 EFT EFT 6f3 6f3 EFT EFT 6H Q N N ~ ~ ~ W W W W W W W W W W W W W ❑ ❑ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q W W W W W W W W W W W W W (Q pp (if OfOf (if (if Of � NN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ww ❑ wwww ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w ❑ ❑ ❑ wwww ❑ ❑ ww ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 76 '0 W W W W W WJ WJ W W W W W WJ W W WJ W WJ W W W W O Ny ccZZZZZZOOZOOOOZZZZZZ ZZZOOOOZZ ZZZZR R _ N J J > > > - - - U > U - - - - > > U > > > U > > C LO al .v .v W W W W W W Z Z W Z Z Z Z W W W W W W Z W W W Z Z Z Z W W Z Z W W W W C: 00 - - M M r� m m m V V O o o o r M M M M M M N O O N N o o o N N o V r r r r 1 Z D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r 0 0 N O o O r r r ,�t 0 0 M N M N N 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 M W . M . M . N N 0) 00 r r r r N •� MrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrR � w � d 06 r Y � Lntoto 00 0) 0 M V Mtor� W 00rNM V u1M � O00rNM ITu1M � O00 y w N N cu IT V V IT m m m m m m m m m M M M M M M M M M M � � � � � � � � � � O i Lr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Q O Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T W _ o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 � � m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Q 27 of 37 C) i � i (0 0 0 (0 C) m r N 00 m m m v r LO 00 m co lu R O N m O N (00) O L R m r 00 ) ♦— � L O i (0 i r 0) (0 co O n i M O (0 0) 1� (0 u1 co V 1� w O m N N N r (0 O r y L J r� m N O V m a0 M = (D r N r V V w (0 r 00 Y CR O C U E!3 E!-7 EA d3 d3 H-7 d3 H3 69 L J r� L 1 O O 00 00 O M 1� 0) O O N 0) 00 1� 1� 00 V m N r, N N N N N _ ZT 'O R m (f3 ER ER ER ER ER GO GO 69 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N � N(O IT N N (O N N N N N V N C Y R C E O R U O O C) O O O O O O C) C) O C) C) C) C) C) 0) c0 rn V O) 0) V rn o_ O1 N C ZT 7 R mo m � � 01 i 0 i i i C i O m LOI I I I I i i O O i ++ I� O N N (O N O O N O r 0 0 r 0 Q E N cu o 0 00 O "O O O ILL O LL (0 C) (O C) C) C) C) M m m N C) (0 m 0 (0 0 0 0 C) C) m m m L y000 (o00000) 00 OvCO00) 00000 (oCOM N 3v_ (OO (O (O (O (OO ( ) V) N (0 (o (OOr� 000OOOv_ v > rc 0) C) C) N O O V 0) 0) 0) (O r� � (n (O Ls Ls Ls Ls N LO OO > r r� m I� V r� r� V 00 00 N m r� (O (n V m 00 qe w yr cO rm Y N M (1) C (D 7 C O O d U (fl (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» 69 to O l0 O O O O m m m N O to m 0 m 0 0 0 O O m m m y M CD to OOOO d) 00 OITm0000000 (O mM V Lx O LO LO M M O M M N (O to M O I� O O O O O O T le m O O N O O V 0) 0) 0) LO r, r, (n (O Lsi Lsi Lsi Lsi N LO W > m M M N m I� (O N V m 00 qe V r m r m C N M N m K3 GO GO EFT EFT GO GO EFT GO GO 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 GO GO EFT EFT GO GO 69 Q W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z A, J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W 00000000000000000000000 � UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU � N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J C i W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W C: r r� 1` 1` 1` 1` 1` m m m r r r r r r r r r r u 1 1� 1` 1 � Of� 1` 1` 1` 1` 1` 00000N O 00000001� 1` 0 m m m m m m m r 1� 1` N •> M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N R C= 0 w W 7 N 7 06 N L N Q N -t Y 1` r N m V u1 (0 1� CO 0) O r N m V u1 (0 1� 00 0) O r N y cu w N co co co co co co co co co 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O O C) C) C) i L r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N Q O Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T LLl _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:) cc::)) 0 0 0 �v M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Q 28 of 37 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I O (0 O O LO O O V O O O O 00 00 r� O N N 00 R N N LO (O (O F M Ef3 EH EA EA EA EA EA EA L N i i i i i i M M n O N O C1 0) N N (0 O (0 O O P� V V I� P� (O V (O (n N O) V 00 N N (O Y (Q C E O U m EA EA ER EA ER EA EA EA ico i i ico M i i i i i O V O O (0 P� P� L` O LO O O N OM 0•) M 0) LO 00 N C OJ Lqf) � � M A N V E m EH 69 H3 EH ER (f3 (f3 ff3 O i i i i i i C:) i i i C) i i i i i i i i i C:) i i i i i O O O i i i i O O O O O O O O N N N N 0 N Y (Q C O t0 U O i i i i i i C:) i i i C:) i i i i i i i i i C:) i i i i i O O O i i i i O O O O O O O O o_ � V V O V V V V v m C p1 � T O � � m � � ..J CO i i i i i i i i i 00 i i i i i i i i i 0) i i i i i co O (O i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i co (3) 00 Ln O V Un O) 4 O O N L (II O_ cc C aJ 0 0 O 'O O O LL O LL O O O 00 O (O (O (O O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O O (O (O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 0 (O O N O w N V (O O N N V L O 00 N CD (O (O (O (O CD (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O CD (O (O (O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD LO 0) CD CD (O CD r� (O 0) CD V (O 0) 0) r� 3 to to to to O to to to to to to to to to to to to LO to N M to to O O M V O LO O r� M M � f� N M O O V M LO O O (O ; M 00 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to O M � N O _ � _ _ _ O M O M M O O O M > 0000 N LO O) V � � � N N N ov M ((0 M M f� N O O O N N M N N M M M � N N Y L Y Z3 O O I U Ef3 EA (A (A (A v% (A (f3 (A (A (A 6q Ge) v% (f) be) be) (f) be) be) (f) (A (f) be) (f) be) be) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) be) be) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) be) be) (f) (A v% (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) CS LL 0 0 0 00 N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 (O O N O 00 N V (O O N N V y 0 00 N O CO CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO M M M M M M M M M CO O CO CO CO O O O O O O O O to O O O (O O f� (O 0) O � (O 0) 0) f�- � (O r� � � C) N � � 0 0 O) � CD LO CDf� 0000 �_ r�- N 0000 � 00 LO CD OO I�- CO CO CO CO CO CO O CO CO CO M M M M M M M CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N O CO r� N O P� O CO O CO 00 O O O O CO NNO V V 00 NN CD OV 00 COOMM r�- N CD CD CD NM N N M M M � Ol C V/ m 64 (f) (f) (f) (A (A (A (A (A (f) (f) (f) (A (A EA EA (A (f) (f) (f) (A (A (A (A (A (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) 64 64 64 64 (f) (f) (A (A (A (A (A (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) bo u) 6S .;A O N N N CO LO (0 P� 00 0) Q cn (n (n (n (ncncncn (n (nU) U) U) cncncnU) U) U) U) U) cncncn (n (n (n (n (ncncncnU) U) U) U) U) cncnU) U) (n (nincncncncncncn �C wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww A, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �✓ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J � G� /� Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww mo � M M N M M M 1 ma m m m N � � (O (O (O M a0 M M V N M M M M M M M M M M M M Q � N N � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •> M M OM OM Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) CO CO co co co co co co OM OM OM OM OM OM OM OM OM OM OM OM co co co co co co co co OM OM OM Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) C) C_- }1 LU 0 m OAS y L � (n Q L N O•) V LO (0 I� CO 0) O N O•) V LO (0 I� 00 0) O N O•) V LO (0 r� 00 0) O N O•) V CO 0) O N O•) V LO (0 I� CO 0) O N Cr) V w 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) O) O) O) 0) CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O �.�', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000 Q 29 of 37 M N LO LO 0 O O (0 O n M r� N 00 O (0 r� 00 00 �_ � Ici((0 M N � M ( N M f� N Y m 00 L F EH EA EH EA EA EA ER EA ER ER V3 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O N LO N O CD M 00 O V O (A L() 0) cq O Cl N (0 CD (0 CDU) M O N M V N CO N N (A (O V- (3) 06 L6 N V N N O N 00 N LO C%j 0 M C E O U EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 ER Ei) Ei) 43 V 00 N O O 00 Ce)cq CD V Cl1n a0 O qT � I� N O O CD N V M a0 a0 LO P� M co N O (`') LO N O y N V O N R E cu m 1611, 11411 143 1 fA 1 1 1 143 143 1 1 EH 1 1 1 1 fA 64 64 (A ' O O ' O ' ' O ' ' ' ' O O ' ' ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O N (0 (0 (0 (0 f� (O (0 (0 N V N N N NN N Ln (n V 0 N Y (Q E O m U � O O O O O O O O O O V d1 d1 61 0) V 0) (0 (0 V o_ O7 O) C O) LE m � T O R � m � � .o I� N (3) O � N N M (n M _ O O O O O O N N N L (II Q c � Q 0 O 'O O O u O LL O m O r� N O O O O (0 O O O (0 (0 (0 w O O O O O O O m O O O m L O m m LO N O O O O r� m m O (0 (0 (0 N (0 V O In M O O N O O O 3 O Ln 40 40 M � O O r� M r� 00 O LO LO LO 0) N (0 M 00 O O LO V O 0) O O ; (0 N m r� N N Ln Ln _ M Ln � V O 00 Ln Ln Ln r� 00 Ln (0 Ln (O R r O (0 (0 V 00 LO V M 00 N V 0) 00 M 0) N N V M M M LO N M (0 LO y W Y O O U H3 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA LL O m O r� N O 000 (0 O O O N N N W O O O O O O Om O O OM y 0 M M N N 0 0 0 O r` Ln In O M M M N (0 V OOup) O ON O O OO 3 C Ln 0) 0) M � 0 0 r� M r� M O M N (0 M r` O O M � O M O V R O N 00 CD I- CO M CO M O M A N M � 00 Ln 0) w N V O M co LO M In M N N V m 00 M co (0 d) LO C N` m EA (f) (f) (f) fA 69. fA fA fA (f) (f) 64 64 fA fA fA fA (f) (f) (f) fA fA fA fA fA (f) (f) 69 E9 Q cn (n (n (n (n to to to to to to to ul ul (n to to to to to ul ul (n to to to (n L (Q W w W " W W W W W W W W W W W W W w w W W W W W W w W W �✓ J J J � J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J � a N �. AA WwwuiWwwwwW w w w w w w w w W Lu W W wwWWWW CONONCO CO CO N N O N N N N CO O O O 0') 0') O O') 1 � M1� V (M N (M NNN (M V OM 1� V TNONNN CO LO LO LO Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N (n •� M M Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) OM OM OM OM OM OM OM (`M (`M OM Cr) Cr) Cr) OM CO CO 10 �r T r W W 7 N 7 06 (n L N L N Q M L N M V LO (0 I� CO 0) O N O') V LO (0 I� CO 0) O N (`') V LO (0 I� CO 0) O y W _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N (M i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q L y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T W O CD O CD O O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O O CD CD CD CD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a LL o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N Q 30 of 37 I 1 LO LOO M M LOO co v N M rn m a CO CO N co cq G rE CJ 0 N O M V 0 0) M O O O N N N O M r O r r 0� a0 r N M N O O r r U) y N r N O rl = y r LO _ N O E O M M O r M N r� r O LO O No O N M N r� N LO r� 00 u) r CO r r N co 01 67 N V- �_ co cm co O m E O O O O O O O O ' ' 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O M O O O O O LO LO LO O LO LO LO LO LO LO C N cm O m U O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o Lo Lo m Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo r 0 rn y c rn a 14 :3 R m O LO M U) OM N O � M N � M M Q N (B o 0 00 O mo O ILL O LL O LO 0 0 � M LO O M M r� L O LO I� O M O r� O O M M N co O N LO O r N r r M C0 M W O > la LO M Ln r CO r n � � O M M COO Y N M W N N cu 7 C O O d U 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 6H 6H O L0 r 0 0gzl- M LO O M r M CO) O S O N Ln O r N r r M O M 00 W LO CO Ln r CO r n h O M CO) O cm N M Ln M c N La � J 0 O W W W W W W W W O W W d d d d d d d d d d d U U U U U U U U a U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O 0 � O rn d d d d d d d d = d d N ,c', wwwwwwwwcnww E LOL r r r r r r r r LT) O r C Z O O O O O O O O N N O O L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 t_ Q N N N N N N N N r N N y W 7 N 7 N L cu Y m Lfl r� O M O r N M V Ln y w L r r r r r r r r r r r Q Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T w _ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y LLUUUUUUUUUUUIn Q 31 of 37 (Do O O ' O ' ' 0 0 (n 0 11111. O O 00 O N m M ( 7 (D N O O O O R W I� (O (D_ N u1 N � 7 N 00 (O M N N N II- N M Q [I- 7 00 7 N 7 7 Ln 7 w a) R `J! O L F (A EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA YT (O O N O O M O O O O co I1- O N O N O 7 M M O M 00 O O N O M N 7 Ln Ln Ln Ln LD N (O M 00 N (O (O (O N (O N N (n (D M N (D N N C IM r R c £ O O O O O 00 O N O O Ln 0 Re O O CC) 0 7 N (D O O O O CO (O 7 00 N (O (O N (O O M N N M N O 0) OJ N C_ O a R E 00 p (» (» (» (» (» e» e» (» (» (» (» fA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (O (O N 00 W (O (O O O (O 00c N LO N (O N N N M M M M V C r R C O R U � 00 000 O O 0000 00 000 O O 0000 Oi (D O) Oo Oi Oi Oi 0 0 Oo 0 o_ N M M N M 0) N C_ Ol a (0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0000 00 000 O O 0000 -a M N 7 7 7 M 7 N s a 0) OQ a (iS mow° E ca 00 O LO N ft 0) M 0 0 0 Q O) ItO N N O) V O) CO 00CDO N M O O O M M N M 'o s 0 c 0 LL L O O > LL O O (O O O O O I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D (D (D (D 1-1 (D 00 (D It It O (D (D (D 0 0 (D CDO V 0 0 0 C) O) O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O (O O O V (O O N 0 0 0 0 (D 7 0 0 V O N O N O O O O O (O O O O O O LO O O O O M O O O N O) O LO LO LO LO 00 LO LO O rIIII O O LO f� � LO O (O O O O O O M O M M O V V N O M M M N M rIIII M M N M W R O LO (O O N N O LO O M V V O O M m O V O M (O N (O f� M O V V (O V CO 0 > V (O V f� a /1 M Y_ d Y_ O U 64 U) U9 U9 fn U9 U9 U9 U9 U9 U9 fn U9 U9 U9 09 09 09 fn 09 09 fn 09 U9 U9 U9 fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn 40 O O (O O O M O I�- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r O 00 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 N 0 00 y O O 7 0 0 0 O O) O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O (O O O 7 (O O N O O c0 O f� 0 0 7 0 N N O N 00 O O O O c0 O O O O O O O O O I1- M O O O N O) O 0 0 0 � ma LO LO 0 O O LO II- r N O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 7 I�- N O M N M N N r r o I� N O Ln N 0 N N O N O M 7 7 0 7 (V (O 7 � C ro (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» (» v) Q T- 7- 7- U U = _ _ L rn N W W W W W W W W W W W W W ❑ 5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > a�i aci QQ QQQQ Q QQQQ QQ W W W W W W W W W W W W W 00afafwwww 0 0af (DCDCDCDwwwafww 0afafaf0000afaf (D (Dafafafaf +J �+ � � ❑ oo000WW0WWWW000000W000WWWW00WW0000 W W WJJ J J J J J J J -o a W W W W W W J W W W JJJJ W W JJ W WCD C JddC Z>M� Z>M� Z>N Z Z Z O OU7r Z OU00 OUOW OUO00 OU00 Z>M Z>M Z Z Z Z OUN Z>O) Z>O) Z>N OUN OUO OUO OUO Z>N Z>N OU0 OU Z_> Z_> Z ZW W R R — — — dO ,( WWWWWWZZWZZZZWWWWWWZWWWZZZZWWZZWWWW_> O 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0N000 . . � 700MNMO) O) 0 (NO) 70000 �L> N N N N N N I� N N N 1 W O) O) N N O) 00 C= W 06 V/ 7 N 7 L (n ¢` c NIVIIII caW YLn (O (O It' 00 O) O LO N M LO LO (O r 00 O) O � N M V LO (O rl,w w O) O � N co V LO O r 00 O) O R L NN V V V V W u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) (O (Ommmmmmm (Or� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� r� ooQ U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a C LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q 32 of 37 N I N O O (0 al M 0 O N £ r rn M m o � m 1 o L OCN to n o rn m M ro N o0 O Y w C m C 0 0 In M 00 Cq 7 O Ln � M M C N G1 a m E m Q VJ EA fR O O O O N (O e V N V Qf C cn V mC C C o m U � O O O O 7 of a rn a C ZM :o m ro � mo I I 1 1 o 7 O O +J 0 0 (n a (V v 0 s a 0Q � o" w E ca v r. o -o s 0 a 0 LL L O > 0 LL (O O LO 0 0 0 0 (0 (`) M N O O M O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 LO OD O1 OD O (O O O O O m 0 0 O V (`) 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 (O M M d V N O 1n 1n 1n 1n O LO- LO- N (0 (O LO- O I� O O O O O O V q O O O N O O V O O O LO I� I` LO (O LO LO In In N LO 00 m = I� M I� V I� I` V 00 00 N M I� (O LO V M OD q* 0 > V = M 0) a U) N 07 Y_ d Y_ Q U fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn (O O Ln O O O O M M M N O O M O M O O O O O O OD M N W O (O O O O O O O O � O 7 M O O O O O O O (O M M 7 Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln O Mn N N (O (O Mn O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 qe mro O O O N O O 7 0 0 0 LO r r Ln (O Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln 00 > I,- M I� 7 I,- I,- 7 00 00 N M O Ln M M 00 Re N N M m (fl (A U) (A U) (A U) (A U9 (A U9 (A U) (A U9 (A U9 (A U9 lug EA ug (A (A ER Q L w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w (Q > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz cu 00 00000000 0000000 0000000 0 000 00 00 a)U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 00 U 0000 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz E (N/I J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J � d w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0 a I` r r I�- r r M M M LO r r i a O r r r r r r O O_ O_ O_ O N O O O O O O O O V a I,- I,- 1` r r r N M 010 M M M M 1 � }� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N R w T ° 06 v L (n a co C IA N (u Y r N (0 V LO W r 00 m O N co V LO w r 00 O) O = N m w O O LM � 00000000000000000000000a = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w LL0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDa 00000000000000000000000 = Q 33 of 37 M r v 0 O 00 O O O � (D m00o LLn 0) E MLn M r o O � � rn m Y o L � rfl rfl rfl 0:> rfl rfl 0 o Oco O O m n � roN ro v O m N Ln r M W O LO Y � r C r A C C O C U pea (a (a (a <» (a v O m 0 o v co rn rn 00 CO Ln 7 m N a0 M M m E m p (a (a Ea Ea Ea fa O O O O O O O O O O O O (O N (O (O (O (O c N It N N N N CM V C C V �C C C U ❑ O o 0 o O O 0 0 0 o O O a v 66 ai ai 0 rn v c m a E o m ❑ mo 7 o 0 0 0 O O Cl U) 0 0 0 0 0 p N c t 0) O ❑ wo cu v OD r� r` OD p r r� N N v 0 0 0 O O 'o r 0 a 0 ❑ LL L a) 0 0 U. w O O O OD (O (O (O (O O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O O (O (O (O O O O O O O O O O V O W O N O OD N V W O N N V O m 0 r N O OD N O (O (O (O (O O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O O (O (O (O O O O O O O O O V) m O O O O r� (O m O V (O m m r� O D) OD LO N N (O r� N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O m 7 O 1f) O r� 00 00 �_ r� N 00 O O V 00 N O O (O O 1f) m m M r = CO OD O N = O M r� N O = r� m M 0 00 00 0 0 0 m (O 117 m f� N A co m N m V V OD = N N O m (O M V r� N O O O N N CO N N CO CO CO C r, CD (O (O Q > M N N N V r� CO N V a N Y C Y C 0 U (a (a (a (arararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararararara (a O O O w N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 O O N O w N 7 c0 O N N 7 O m O r N v o m N O_ M_ M_ M_ M O M M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M O M M_ M O O O O O O O O o m o o c0 O r c0 m o 7 c0 m m r O m w N N O r� � O N O O m 7 0 cn 0 r a0 W a0 0 0 7 a0 cn 0 0 0 O cn m m M MFU r�- N O r�- 0) M 0 00 00 O O O m O N 00 r N ' OD N Ln m 7 7 N N N O C%j0 00 ED M M r N O O O N N M N NM M M 7 r N 7 O mV3 V3 V3 Ea ra fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA Q O N N N CO V7 (O m m C CN CN F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F-- co co U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) is w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w " w +� mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmom O r vwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 1 " M m m m 0 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � m 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � r m r O m M MMNMMM NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN L N N N N N N N N N N N N M N O LU A, T 06 V/ 7 N y Q cu Y ❑ N M V LO (O r 00 m O N M V Lr) (O r 00 m O N M V LO (O r 00 m O N co V 00 m O N co V LO (O r 00 m O N co V M V Lf) (O r w 00 OD 00 00 00 00 OD OD m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 L T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N O Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C lL O 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 34 of 37 N O 7 O Di ' o co Ln m N � v m ao mN Ln v N m m Y o L F F» F» F» w 0 Oo0O (o O m O O M Di N O V- M r 7 M C N N � Y A C O O O O M O O Ln O r Ln It Lc) M M C cu � a m E m EH EH fR ER O O O O O O N N (O o V V N V C C m V C O � U ❑ 000 000 v v of 0 my c m a m m m ❑ mo 7 000 +J 000 (n p N N a s a 0) °o a ca ,� ❑" 0 E ca V m M Q N Ln m O 'o r 0 a 0 ❑ LL L a O � 0 LL O O O O O O O O (D (D (D w O O O O O O O Ln O O O D1 0 0 0 0 f� Ln Ln O (D (D (D N (D V O Ln N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 f� M f� W O Ln Ln Ln m N O M M O O IM V O m O O N Ln Ln Ln M Ln V O = OD Ln Ln Ln r� OD Ln (D Ln (D V OD LO V CO OD N V m 00 M = = m N Q > M M M Ln N M (D Lf) a N D1 cu Y c Y c U fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn (� O O O O (O O O O . . . a 0 O O O O O O O L n O O O M v O O O O I�- Ln Ln O M M_ M N (D 7 o o o O O N 0 0 0 LD T- 0 0 r M r a0 O m N (O M r O O Ln v O m O v MFU N Ln Ln Ln MLn MMM7O 00 Ln Ln r 00 Ln O Ln Di � M 00 M 'n M Ln It M N N 7 0) 00M M O 0) to N m m C_ QF � m co co F ♦- H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H F (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w cQ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w +� mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a) r vwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 1 � � Ln Ln Ln � m M � � � Ln � Ln MMM L NNNN M000MMOM _ MM NNN W000 N N N C= }1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M R W A, T 06 V/ 7 N 7 L wQ IA CO) cu Y ❑ M m O N M V N (O r 00 m 0 N M V Ln (O r 00 m O R W _ 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N M L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a C LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Q 35 of 37 LO N N � n � R R C ❑ L � LI) R Y O L F ER Vi O q* OO V CD w c N d c O U p v> +n n N C) 7 O) O) CO) C_ � R E m m ER K! o_ V C C Q V O A U ❑ 0 rn v c � a E o ro ❑ mo 7 v N cu mo r o Q o o LL L a) O > O U. w O (O O O V M M O OD M r� a) O (O f� O M O f� 0 0 OD M N w O N LO O N M (O M M O > O M m w W N M W N a N N Y c O O (O O o OD O a0 M M v 0 (O I�- O Mo I� O O W a0 N O) = 00 (f) M N N N � Qni W O M CO) O N N M L6 N Q O Q F- F- F- F- F- F- F- FZF- F- U U U U U U U U - U U w w w w w w w w O w w ` aa 'nU) U) aaa +J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 N r v w w w w w w w w w w w u) o L O O O O O O O O N N O i m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 > V Q N N N N N N N N N NLi C= W T r 06 V/ 7 4) 7 L cn w N/ v ca i ❑ N O r OD O) O N M 7 in R W N N N N N V O O O O O O O O O O O O V _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL O O O O O O O O O O O � Q 36 of 37 T M O O LO O LO (O (3) LO (O (O (O T � OD N O O M O T M to LO O LO (O (O (O O 00 ` LO O T LO N O O N O O M LO O LO (O (O (O O 00 T T N 6) O O O rn cM LO O V O O O 00 00 M T f� T r� O OD O OD cM V O V O LO (O 00 00 N T CN � � � (0 LO (0 0Oo 00 T T 00 O co O LO O LO M .-- co 00 qzT (D LO (O co co 4 O T Mco LO CD LO CD 00 V (O LO (O 0co co w O O M LO qzt LO M T co 00 qzT LO LO LO co co w co co LO m N 00 V LO LO LO CD CD CD CAO w � '+^J M M CD LO CD q T CO VJ N 0o V V LO qzT 00 r� N w 0) O � O 00 CO V V M � � Q LO 00 00(D CD 00 OO CO 00 CD CY) CO CO O w LL w N M L N co N N (O V 7 O w d N m (O N LO T O qt ti r 4tf CL w T Q T N 00 N I� co O 4tf O LL � r M CD N CDN co � .0 O N z L�> R � U E LL Q R - Q cn cn U) U)a m U m U m U _ E o `o c `o c ° o m ° ° — W m ° w � LL N N m Q 0 .0 0 .0 °� L R Q Q cu W Y Q W LL LL i s d T U r m N U ate, � OCO CO wQ CO Ulu Iw � LL ly- Q 37 of 37 ATTACHMENT Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Potential Revimill sions City Council Work Session January 11 , 2011 Ken Sampley, P. E. Water Planning and Development Manager Josh Birks Economic Advisor Purpose of Review — The City is attempting to reduce flood risk in the Poudre River basin . — Further development in the floodplain results in increased risk to existing properties • Increases flood elevations and velocities • Changes flow patterns — By allowing more development in areas prone to flooding , addonal people and property , including emergency response personnel , are at risk . F�tf Purpose of Review - Review of Floodplain Regulations is one aspect of the Stormwater Repurposing effort . - The only floodplain regulations being reviewed are for the Poudre River because : • It is the largest watershed in the city • It has the potential to generate the highest flows , deepest depths and highest velocities during a flood event • It cannot be modified with engineering solutions . • The best way to prevent future flood losses is through floodplain regulations . Background Information • Key Considerations - Options under consideration are ONLY for the Poudre River floodplain and floodway. - Irrespective of current or proposed regulations , floodway and floodplain boundaries CAN be revised by a FEMA map change process . This requires detailed engineering analyses and submittals to the City and FEMA. F� [tins Background Information • Key Considerations ( Cont ' d ) — There are currently 3 (three) Sets of Distinct Floodplain Regulations in City Code : • Poudre River ( FEMA-Mapped ) • Other FEMA-Mapped Floodplains (Spring Creek, Dry Creek, Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough ) • City-Mapped Floodplains ( Old Town , Fossil Creek, etc . ) Fit,f Background Information August 24 , 2010 Council Work Session Staff directed to address the following questions 1 . What is the purpose and need to change the floodplain regulations ? 2 . Analyze the impact on properties in more detail . 3 . Provide more economic analysis . 4. Describe better " Less people at risk" — how many? 5. Provide more information on " No Adverse Impact" to the public and to the Council . F�t General Direction/Specific Questions 1 . Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided for them to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ? 2 . Does Council have comments and/or direction with regard to the specific options identified ? [tins Why Just the Poudre River? Poudre is the largest watershed in the city Drains 1 ,537 square miles of land into Fort v , - -- r,� Collins r. Generates a peak flow of 13,300 cfs and velocities over 13 fps Can flood for days or .. . weeks vs. hours in other basins Floods can be caused by rain, snowmelt, and rain- 1904 Poudre River flood . High water on-snow storm events mark on homes in Andersonville. FL tf� Why Just the Poudre River? • Solutions are more difficult on the Poudre - Construction projects cannot block or divert a major flood - There are no feasible or cost effective construction projects that will mitigate flood damage - Only viable approach is to manage risk through floodplain regulation [tins Public Outreach Summary • Specific Property Owner Letters • Individual ( One -on -one ) Meetings • Presentations to Boards/Commissions • Presentations to Citizen Groups • Open House • Open House boards at Aztlan Center • Media/ News Releases City of • Website ,wF`o_rtollins Current Regulations Option 1 Option 2 Acres m 100-Year Acres to 0 5-foot Adddional Acres in Total Acres in Acres in Floodplam Floodway 0 1 -foot Floodway 0 1-toot Floodway Flood Fringe City Lrcnits 380 203 42 245 178 Growth Management 860 283 69 354 576 Area Total jkm lv240 487 111 598 753 • • • Tel • • • ' • 1 • 1 1 ease • - • • 6 Public • . Specific PropertyOwner Letters For ollins Public • . Specific PropertyOwner Letters Mtl.pw .lwM.�Y .pw�.�.W�Yw Ma n._�2p IW.IOw J40Ml -c - p-eM V.Y_i. ixv�n-a. Le City of _ _ JI.W.u� CWm � AM..P q-w• tr, J • • rt llins Public Outreach Specific Property .�u.., Owner Letters The table on the right summarizes changes the three options have on the primary floodplain regulations for the floodway and flood fringe. Red text indicates where the regulations would become more restrictive, black text indicates current regulations . Public Outreach Boards and Commissions Land Conservation & Stewardship August 11 , 2010 Planning and Zoning August 13, 2010 Water Board August 19, 2010 Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 2010 Natural Resources Advisory Board December 15, 2010 FL tf� Public Outreach City Departments Advance Planning July 28, 2010 Natural Resources August 2 , 2010 Natural Areas Advisory Board October 20 , 2010 Natural Resources Senior Staff November 4, 2010 Planning and Economic Development November 18, 2010 Public Outreach Business Groups North Fort Collins Business Association August 25, 2010 Downtown Development Authority September 9, 2010 Commercial Brokers September 16, 2010 Ft Collins Area Chamber of Commerce September 17 , 2010 North Fort Collins Business Association September 22 , 2010 North College Citizen Advisory Group October 7, 2010 South Fort Collins Business Association December 8 , 2010 FL tf� Public Outreach Other Government Agencies Larimer Board of Co . Commissioners October 25, 2010 Other Groups Save the Poudre August 11 , 2010 Wildlands Restoration Volunteers November 2 , 2010 Open House November 18 , 2010 Public Outreach November 18 , 2010 Open House • Fort Collins Stormwater and Floodplain Administration Staff reviewed Presentation Boards and key considerations associated with the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations with Open House Attendees • Staff received feedback from attendees on the potential floodplain regulation options . FCity of [ins 1 Public Outreach November 18 , 2010 Open House • AIS Attachment 5 - Contains a Table Public Open House. Poudre River Floodplain ReguiaUons Review. summarizing comments from the , . ' Open House • AIS Attachment 5 - y Listing of all comments received at the Open '� F�t Public Outreach November 18 , 2010 Open House Summary of Frequent Comments (Comment Theme from Open House � kio I ncy , (This adversely impacts businesses. '� 22 The regulations are ok the way they are currently. �— There is alot of money being spent on this effort by the City. Seems wasteful. _ Seems like over regulation by the City. -�� Support for increased floodplain regulations. �� � This seems like a taking or condemnation. Compensation is needed for affected businesses. i The risk is felt to be low. ,� 9 1 FL tf� Public Outreach November 18 , 2010 Open House Summary of Frequent Comments Comment Theme from Open House �� Freque� Support for most strict option of no structures in th �� �floodplain . rrhe Poudre River should be allowed to run naturally . �- A lot of Community and City effort has gone into the North College area . These regulations would negate all the money land effort already spent. Don 't allow property owners to flood or impact property caned by others . ( No Adverse Impact) . (Fort Collins is already more restrictive than most �_ I4_�om m unities . (Public Safety should be of highest priority. Building in the '� loodplain is dangerous . Public Outreach • Website ♦`J �c V _ Fa r F�t tly Asked Questions • Won 't the Glade Reservoir - Northern Integrated Supply Project ( NISP ) reduce flooding on the Poudre River by storing flood flows in the reservoir? No . NISP is not proposed as a flood control project. It can only divert a maximum of 1 ,200 cfs using pumps assuming an empty reservoir and the 100 -year flood on the Poudre is 13 , 300 cfs . Fit,f Frequently Asked Questions • Why can ' t engineering solutions significantly reduce flooding on the Poudre River? The Poudre River Master Plan studied and reviewed a wide variety of alternatives including structural engineering facilities . They are infeasible due to the high discharge ( 13 , 300 cfs ) , large runoff volumes and existing federal and state environmental and regulatory constraints . F� [tins Frequently Asked Questions • Other communities outside Colorado have similar regulations , but none in Colorado are as stringent as those currently in place in Fort Collins . Fort Collins is not a categorical industry leader in floodplain regulations in Colorado . Several states and municipalities enforce higher floodplain standards than those in Fort Collins . at,, of F`rt\�lins Frequently Asked Questions • Attachment 2 �r� 0000�r�=moo©a »e��000e©gym FL tf� Frequently Asked Questions • Won 't flood insurance pay for damages and losses to buildings and property? Isn 't the business/property owner taking all the risk? No. Flood insurance has limited coverage ( up to $500,000) for non -residential buildings and contents . The value of businesses usually exceed the amount of insurance. In addition , flood insurance does not pay for business interruption or lost wages . Taxpayers pay for flood losses when a Presidential disaster is declared . Frequently Asked Questions • Don 't the current regulations account for displaced floodwater from new development? No . The current regulations allow flood elevations to rise 0 . 5 feet. As properties develop in the flood fringe , floodwater is forced onto other properties , including those that are in the floodplain and sometimes to those that originally were out of the floodplain . F� [tins Frequently Asked Questions • The City spent millions of dollars ($ 10M + ) making improvements to the Dry Creek drainage area to take properties along North College Avenue out of the floodway. Won 't the revised Poudre River regulations negate all that effort and money? No . The improvements reduced the Dry Creek Floodplain , which is different than the Poudre River Floodplain , The Dry Creek project removed 4 ,400 lineal feet of frontage from the floodplain on the west side of College Avenue and 3 , 100 ft lineal feet of frontage from the floodplain on the east side . c� of F`rt Poudre River Floodplain Reg Options • Option #1 : The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0 . 1 foot rise floodway; OR • Option #2 : The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain ; OR • Option #3 : No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations ( null alternative) ; OR • Additional Option : #4 — No Adverse Impact F�t Floodplain Regulations Definitions and Concepts [tins Current Regulations • Non -structural development in the flood fringe CAN be approved administratively by City staff. • Development within the floodway MUST be modeled hydraulically. Approval through the City IS required and a FEMA Letter of Map Revision ( LOMR) Process MAY be required . • Within the above continuum , there ARE varying levels of development and modification that can be done dependent on the project type and location . F�t Flood • Revisions Available under all options Ped�rnl l:mrrM.nry AlamiKrm�mt . .•ruy • revisions �errea ar YAl aewaa OETEMYM.ETpY pOCUYEM based on • • r �W.4� RMY.sr ..I�aw�u. changes Hydraulic models • • construction .r a ter. un _�• r��w_M_ �M a . -.. changes • • • • lain �1r mapping revisedThe floodway can be • ll affected property wners are _r �.Y�1iv V���T�i1Y.�Y.�r�wr•r�+ • notified by mail • / • Regulations Poudre River at 100-year Floodplain FringeChance Flood Flood-> Flood Stage Fill Material 0 .5-ft Rise Floodway Fringe Fill Material BFE 0.5-ft Rise Riparian Channel Riparian Overbank Overbank 18 Floodplain Regulations Allowable Rise Concept by Current Codes 100- ear Flood lain � wider New , Structure Existing Structure , Not in Floodplain �i _ Fill Material BFE Small Rise i �N Ilk Overbank Channel Overbank Poudre River Floodplain Reg Options 38 19 Impact of Each Option on Floodplain and Floodway �tf1 Option # 1 - 0 . 1 Foot Rise Floodway • Widens current floodway to slightly larger area • Increases area subject to existing floodway regulations ( prohibits new structures and additions in expanded floodway) . • Permits trails , parks , infrastructure ( bridges and culverts ) , monuments , golf courses , parking areas , landscape features , and other non -structural development • New structures and additions can still be constructed in the flood fringe F�tf 20 Option # 1 - Benefits and Detriments PRIMARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Reduces threats to life Removes structural safety and property development damage , opportunity on impacted • Reduces damage - parcels rebuild cycle Building expansion will (sustainable) be more difficult • Reduces local funding Not consistent with demands for post-flood current zoning practices clean -up • Reduces absenteeism and lost productivity city of after floods Fort Collins Option # 1 - Benefits and Detriments ( cont' d ) SECONDARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Protects a larger May not be consistent natural corridor with City-wide visions • Promotes riparian like Plan Fort Collins health and biodiversity Inconsistent with • Consistent with Larimer County current best practices regulations in floodplain Cost to remap floodway management May reduce net City • Consistent with pre- revenue 2007 regulations F�t Option # 1 - Funding and Implementation If Option #1 is the Preferred Option , the following are funding and implementation approaches : a . Pursue FEMA funding ($250 , 000) to remap the Poudre River (3-5 year implementation ) . b . Use City funds ($250 , 000) to remap the Poudre River (2 -3 year implementation ) . c . Use City funds ($50 , 000 — $70 , 000 ) to only remap the 0 . 1 foot floodway (6 month to 1 year implementation ) . F�t Option #2 - No Structures in 100 -year Floodplain • Floodway does not change . • New structures and additions are prohibited in the 100 -year floodplain — A structure is defined as having two or more outside rigid walls and attached roof. • Increases development restrictions over Option # 1 by further reducing developable area . • Permits trails , parks , infrastructure ( bridges and culverts ) , monuments , golf courses , parking areas , landscape features , and other non -structural development ari °f F�t [ins Option #2 = Benefits and Detriments PRIMARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Further reduces threats Removes more to life safety and structural development property damage , opportunity from more • Further reduces lands damage-rebuild cycle New structures and (sustainable) additions prohibited in • Further reduces local entire 100 -year funding demands for floodplain response and clean -up Not consistent with • Further reduces current zoning absenteeism and lost practices productivity after floods F�t Option #2 - Benefits and Detriments ( cont ' d ) SECONDARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Protects a larger • May not be consistent natural corridor with City-wide visions • Promotes riparian like Plan Fort Collins health and • Inconsistent with biodiversity Larimer County • More consistent with regulations current best practices • May further reduce in floodplain City revenue management • Requires a change to City Code FCity t Option #3 - No Change to Current Regulations • No change to floodplain or floodway boundaries . • No change to the floodplain regulations — New residential and mixed -use structures are not allowed in the flood fringe — New non -residential structures and additions are allowed in the flood fringe . Ilins Option #3 - Benefits and Detriments PRIMARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • No implementation • Allows new development costs or City Code in areas of flood risk revisions ( Primary) ' New obstructions divert • Continuity of regulations floodwaters onto at jurisdictional existing neighbors boundaries with Larimer Limits preservation of County ( Primary) river functions and • Limits the protection of riparian health and habitat F�t Collins Option #4 - No Adverse Impact ( NAI ) • Goal -- Prevent the worsening of flooding on existing homes and businesses through responsible floodplain development. • Basic NAI principle - One property owner can not adversely impact the rights of other property owners . • NAI would promote new development on the Poudre River that - Fits into the surrounding infrastructure and environment - Is equitable to surrounding neighbors and - Is economically and environmentally sustainable . Option #4 - No Adverse Impact ( NAI ) • NAI does not take the place of or circumvent floodplain regulations . • In fact, NAI works to correct floodplain and social liabilities of existing floodplain regulations . - The current Poudre River floodplain regulations allow property owners to create obstructions to flood flow that can force floodwaters onto existing neighbors . F� [tins Option #4 — No Adverse Impact ( NAI ) • Implementation of NAI requires that new development or redevelopment demonstrate through engineering analysis : • Certification required from PE and CFM • No increase in base flood elevation ( BFE) • No adverse impacts on adjacent, upstream and downstream properties including — No increase in flood velocities — No increase in erosion or sedimentation — No increase in flood damage. Option #4 - Benefits and Detriments PRIMARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Reduced threats to life Approach is results safety and property based versus damage ( Primary) prescriptive regulations • Protection of existing — less certainty in properties , residents and identifying development businesses from known and/or redevelopment flood hazards ( Primary) opportunities • Reductions to local May reduce or limit funding demands for post- potential developmentcompared to that flood clean up ( Primary) allowed with Options 1 , • Minimizes business 2 and 3 , related losses ( Primary) F�t [ins Option #4 - Benefits and Detriments ( Cont ' d ) PRIMARY BENEFITS DETRIMENTS • Reduced demands on emergency response personnel ( Primary) • Accommodates the preservation of river functions (Secondary) • Accommodates the protection of riparian health and habitat (Secondary) . Fit,fly Economic Analysis Background • Based on Council and Public feedback the City hired Economic & Planning Systems to conduct and Economic Impact Analysis ( EIA) of the proposed floodplain regulations • The complete analysis is available as an attachment to the Agenda Item Summary (Attachment 9) • The EIA focuses on four geographic areas selected by the Economic Health Office due to the opportunity for future development potential FL [tins Economic Analysis Methodology • EPS examined County Assessor parcels along the Poudre River impacted by the 100-year floodplain • Special emphasis was placed on four geographic areas identified by the Economic Health Office • An estimate of the ( re )development potential of each area based on current regulations ( Option 3 - No Change ) forms the baseline from which the economic impact is estimated [tins Economic Analysis Key Assumptions/Limitations Any EIA analysis has limitations based on the assumptions informing the analysis • The future development potentials is a planning level estimate over an extended timeframe of up to 50 years • The estimate represents the best use determination of future development based on existing regulations F� [tins Economic Analysis Key Assumptions/Limitations (Cont' d ) • The estimated development potential may or may not be realized due to multiple factors and the actual time period could be shorter or longer. • The figures are therefore designed to estimate a maximum future impact based on current economic conditions, which may change. It is against this maximum potential that the impacts from Option 1 and Option 2 are compared . • No project specific market forecasts therefore no firm estimate of development by time period Economic Analysis Key Assumptions/Limitations (ConLn • Current market values are applied by land use category to estimate development values, which form the basis for economic impacts. • No actual determination of value for identified development areas, ownerships, or individual parcels is either offered or implied . • The actual value of any parcels or sites cannot be determined without more extensive appraisal work and will depend on multiple factors, including but not limited to: - the size of the parcel , shape, access, visibility; - the willingness to sell ; - the quality and viability of any existing uses, occupancy levels, and/or net operating incomes ; and - larger economic and market conditions present at the time of sale. FL tf� Economic Analysis Key Assumptions/Limitations ( Cont ' d ) • In limited cases , the extent of the floodway or floodplain regulatory change may make new development or redevelopment unlikely. In these circumstances the existing land uses would likely be maintained or if the property is vacant, would remain undeveloped . • The lack of development potential does not imply that the property has no value . • All economic impacts (direct, indirect, and induced ) reported represent gross potential impacts , not " net new" impacts . f Economic Analysis Summary of Findings • Detailed analysis by area provided in Attachment 9 • Analysis does not evaluate Option 4 - No Adverse Impact • Findings subject to the assumptions and limitation stated previously F�t [tins Economic Analysis Findings Option 1 — 1 / 10 foot Floodway • Change in net developable acres = 352 , 000 square feet in potential development impact • Approximately $66 . 4 million in development value • Approximately $ 576 , 000 in annual tax revenue ( Property and Sales Tax) • One-time impacts to construction industry of $ 79 . 3 million or 665 jobs (direct , indirect , and induced ) • On -going impacts (commercial/retail and office development) of approximately $ 138 . 5 million or 830 jobs (direct , indirect , and induced ) [tins Economic Analysis Findings Option 2 — No Structures in Floodplain • Change in net developable acres = 1 . 4 million square feet in potential development impact • Approximately $253 . 0 million in development value • Approximately $2 . 5 million in annual tax revenue ( Property and Sales Tax) • One-time impacts to construction industry of $303 . 4 million or 2 , 540 jobs (direct , indirect , and induced ) • On -going impacts (commercial/retail and office development) of approximately $644 . 9 million or 3 , 760 jobs (direct , indirect , and induced ) F� [tins Economic Analysis Findings Option 4 — No Adverse Impact • Analysis did not include an estimate of the economic impact of this option ( requires individualized analysis of each parcel ) • Some may have minor impacts while others may have large impacts • In some cases , the commonly used floodplain mitigation measures may reduce or even eliminate the impact to a particular process — also mitigating the economic impact • The feasibility and cost/benefit of mitigation measures should be evaluated on a case by case basis Flood Damage Analysis Background • The City requested that AMEC prepare a report that summarizes the economic and other detrimental impacts from flooding on existing and proposed development in four study areas along the Poudre River. • Four geographic areas were selected for analysis : • Area 1 - A portion of the North College Urban Renewal Area north of the downtown. • Area 2 - The Link-N-Green Golf Course redevelopment parcel near Lincoln/Lemay • Area 3 - An area east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street • Area 4 - A portion of WW Reynolds Office Park, Gateway Medical Clinic, and Neenan Development offices north and south of East Prospect Avenue C;tyof FL tfollins � Flood Damage Analysis Key Assumptions • The assessment of future development potential is based on information provided by EPS and is a planning level estimate for future build out over an extended timeframe of up to 50 years . • Existing damages are based on depths from FEMA Flood Insurance Study profiles • Existing damages did not include losses for floods greater than 100 -Year F�t Flood Damage Analysis Key Assumptions ( Cont ' d ) • Future damages did not quantify or include damage to buildings , risk to employees or customers , casualties , emergency services time/resources and risk, evacuation and rescue costs , cleanup costs , parking lot damage , landscaping damage , vehicles , equipment or materials stored outside , utility damages (sewer, water) , road repair, bridge repair. F� [tins Flood Damage Analysis Key Assumptions • Existing structure values with assumed contents values ( 100 % of structure value for commercial , 50 % of structure for residential ) . Included business interruption losses , debris removal costs based on City data , flood disruption costs , rental income losses , capital income losses and sales tax reductions . • Future damages assumed new or substantially= improved development will conform to local FP regulations and limit/reduce losses . city of ollins Flood Damage Analysis Key Assumptions ( Cont ' d ) • Future damages include capital -related income losses of lost services and sales due to restricted business access , capital -related income losses of net loss of waters , displacement costs for temporary relocation , displacement costs for business disruption , displacement costs for rental income loss to building owners , debris removal costs . F� [tins Flood Damage Analysis Scope of Work AMEC conducted the flood damage analysis to determine impacts of flooding on existing and proposed development based on the three regulatory options . The following methods were used to complete the study : • HAZUS-MH -- FEMA's GIS-based natural hazard loss estimation tool was used to perform a flood loss estimation for existing development in the study areas • Flood impacts to proposed development focused on flood disruption losses, based on development projections with estimation based on accepedf methods and values , r eft Collins f1 Flood Damage Analysis Scope of Work ( Cont ' d ) • Proposed development projected building occupancy and square footage was obtained from the EPS Economic Analysis to ensure consistency in development assumptions • A qualitative discussion was provided of the potential impacts that were difficult to quantify and supplements the disruption cost calculations FL tf� Flood Damage Analysis Estimated Employees within Floodplain Assuming Maximum Development Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Areal 19167 457 19281 Estimated Existing Employees* 335 335 335 Estimated Additional Employees** 832 122 946 Area 2 1 ,869 19304 2,134 Estimated Existing Employees* 240 240 240 Estimated Additional Employees** 1629 1064 1894 Area 3 1 ,690 19232 1 ,872 Estimated Existing Employees* 917 917 917 Estimated Additional Employees** 773 315 955 Area 4 651 417 651 Estimated Existing Employees* 417 417 417 Estimated Additional Employees** 234 0 234 This estimate does not include emergency services workers *Assuming 4 employees per 1,000 square foot Assuming Maximum Development ^ Public Safety Considerations • Options 1 , 2 and 4 offer various regulatory alternatives to minimizing flood risk . • Existing properties in the Poudre floodplain are already at risk. • Additional development will increase life = safety risks and property damages when a flood occurs . • It is the City' s duty and responsibility to proactively manage foreseeable risks to protect current and future citizens from physical , financial , and emotional impacts of flooding . F�toll1 General Direction/Specific Questions 1 . Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided for them to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ? 2 . Does Council have comments and/or direction with regard to the specific options identified ? 1:0t Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Potential Revisions QUESTIONS / FEEDBACK City of �t�1