The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/08/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION May 8, 2012 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Public Engagement Strategies for the City of Fort Collins. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Kim Newcomer, Ginny Sawyer; 1 hour discussion) The City of Fort Collins recognizes the importance of sincerely engaging residents in the development of policies, programs, and services. Community engagement is also the basis for building healthy, strong, and inclusive communities. In 2011, City Council identified the need to develop a strategic framework for community involvement organization-wide. City staff has developed a Public Engagement Strategic Plan to accomplish the following goals: (1) better equip City staff to successfully manage public engagement projects; (2) foster an engaged citizenry; and (3) ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. The proposed Public Engagement Strategic Plan outlines a deliberate approach to the City’s community engagement efforts while acknowledging that each situation demands its own customized process. May 8, 2012 3. Transfort Fare Structure, Funding Agreements and MAX Introductory Period.. (Kurt Ravenschlag; 1 hour discussion) Staff is seeking direction from City Council on whether or not it would like to see changes to the Transfort fare structure. In order for Transfort to keep pace with rising expenses and to attain its targeted revenue recovery rate of 20% for fares, passes, and funding agreements, Transfort evaluated three options against the status quo for Council consideration (status quo, increase, decrease, or hybrid). Transfort has not altered its rate structure for either fares or passes since 2004, but has adjusted its agreements in the last three years (e.g., with Associated Students of Colorado State University). Since 2004, the Mountain States Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased over 17%. Transfort will continue to review its fare structure every two years in conjunction with the City budget cycle. Transfort staff is also seeking direction regarding an introductory fare-free period for the MAX service planned to begin in May 2014. Many transit agencies across the country have offered initial fare-free service to help promote a new service and provide an opportunity for citizens to learn the procedures of riding. Three options have been evaluated for Council consideration: fare-free service from May – December 2014; fare-free service from May – July 2014; or no fare-free period. 4. 2012 Water Supply Outlook. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Kevin Gertig, Brian Janonis; 30 Minute discussion) Due to very low mountain snowpack this year, runoff from the Poudre River is expected to be well below average and will reduce the amount of water available to the City from its Poudre River water supplies. However, allocations from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project have been set high giving the City more than adequate supplies from Horsetooth Reservoir. The City does not own or control Horsetooth Reservoir and has a limited ability to hold water in that reservoir for subsequent years. In addition, the City owns very little other storage that can hold conserved water. The Water Utility is already prepared to maintain these reserves for next year’s use, while also meeting higher than average demands. Since water savings will not improve the City’s water supplies for next year, mandatory restrictions are not required. Water savings could provide additional water to local irrigators, but would result in lower revenues and the potential for rate increases. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. DATE: May 8, 2012 STAFF: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Kim Newcomer, Ginny Sawyer Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Public Engagement Strategies for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins recognizes the importance of sincerely engaging residents in the development of policies, programs, and services. Community engagement is also the basis for building healthy, strong, and inclusive communities. In 2011, City Council identified the need to develop a strategic framework for community involvement organization-wide. City staff has developed a Public Engagement Strategic Plan to accomplish the following goals: (1) better equip City staff to successfully manage public engagement projects; (2) foster an engaged citizenry; and (3) ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. The proposed Public Engagement Strategic Plan outlines a deliberate approach to the City’s community engagement efforts while acknowledging that each situation demands its own customized process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the strategies outlined in the Public Engagement Strategic Plan? 2. Does Council have any feedback or suggestions regarding the structure and common language provided through the Public Engagement Spectrum? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Behaviors related to civic engagement are continually evolving. While citizen interest remains high, the way individuals interact with government is changing, along with their expectations. Individuals find themselves with less free time and more options to fill that time. Further, the rapid increase of online social media sites and community engagement tools has brought about new opportunities and challenges. Since identifying community engagement as a Council priority in 2011, staff has researched best practices related to community engagement and examined past City of Fort Collins outreach efforts. This research identified the following key findings: May 8, 2012 Page 2 Overall • Citizen participation is recognized as an asset, is valued, and is encouraged. Challenges • Past experiences are mixed, with successful cases of public engagement, as well as documented occurrences that demonstrate a lack of alignment between Council expectations and staff deliverables. • Authentic and successful public involvement takes time and resources; both are often underestimated in developing public engagement plans. • There is currently no Citywide standardized methodology or language to help align expectations. Opportunities • There is an organization-wide understanding that different levels of engagement are required for different projects. A systematic approach would help to determine the appropriate engagement strategies and techniques. • Existing social media tools support community engagement efforts, but more robust and effective tools exist. • CityWorks 101 and Alumni program provide a successful model for engagement and present further opportunity for utilizing informed citizens. GOALS The Public Engagement Strategic Plan (Attachment 1) aims to accomplish the following goals: • Better equip City staff to successfully lead public engagement projects. • Foster an engaged citizenry. • Ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. The Plan outlines key strategies to accomplish these goals. Following are a few of the key areas that will be discussed with City Council. Public Engagement Framework As identified in the organizational audit of public engagement practices, there have been documented occasions where staff efforts surrounding public engagement and City Council’s expectations of those efforts were not aligned. The Public Engagement Strategic Plan proposes implementing new standardized tools and language to help create common understanding among City Council, City staff, and the community. May 8, 2012 Page 3 Public Engagement Spectrum The Public Engagement Spectrum addresses this challenge by identifying three different levels of public engagement: Inform/Consult; Involve; Collaborate. The Spectrum outlines the types of situations, the tools and techniques, and the role of the citizen for each level. By establishing common language we can minimize miscommunication related to outreach efforts. Public Engagement Summary To further clarify the scope of public engagement efforts related to each project, the proposed framework suggests that each project include a Public Engagement Summary. This one-page document would clearly identify the level of public engagement (based on the Public Engagement Spectrum), the stakeholders, the bottom line question, timeframe, key messages, and tools/techniques. Each project manager would submit this one page summary to City Council in written form thereby allowing Council to suggest changes and improvements before implementation. Online Community Engagement Given the growth in online interaction, many forward-thinking communities are creating online community engagement forums. Options range from very structured to very casual. Factors to consider: • Who hosts the tool? • Who determines topics for discussion? • Guidelines for engagement. • User registration and authentication. • Should the City participate as an organization or as individuals? • Level of documentation and reporting. • Resources. Staff has evaluated multiple tools and is recommending a semi-structured online system be implemented that will more actively engage the community in dialogue around Council policy issues, as well as other topics of the community’s choosing. Staff plans to pursue funding for this initiative in the 2013-2014 budget process. Citizen Feedback Group A common challenge of public involvement is finding ways to engage the broad-based voice of the community, in addition to key stakeholders. In researching best practice for citizen engagement, staff found formal citizen feedback groups to be an effective engagement mechanism to engage citizens on a deeper level and to provide staff with a timely and diverse forum for policy engagement. For example, the City of Longmont has utilized a Resident Feedback Panel for three years with great success. Thirty community members who demographically represent their community based on census data (age, household make-up, education level, etc.) are selected for the group. Members make a one-year commitment to act as a “temperature gauge” of the community and weigh in on policy issues. May 8, 2012 Page 4 While Fort Collins occasionally use the CityWorks Alumni group in this capacity, especially for technically complex issues that require more extensive background prior to providing informed input, staff believes a more formalized structure for broad-based feedback would be valuable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Engagement Strategic Plan 2. Powerpoint presentation Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 Public Engagement Strategic Plan Last updated: April 30, 2012 OVERVIEW The City of Fort Collins recognizes the importance of sincerely engaging residents in the development of policy, programs, and services. Community engagement is also the basis for building healthy, strong, and inclusive communities. In 2011, City Council identified the need to develop a strategic framework for community involvement organization-wide. This strategic plan guides how we will engage the public while addressing key areas in need of improvement. The plan defines a strategic approach to every community engagement effort while acknowledging that each situation demands its own customized process. BACKGROUND Behaviors related to civic engagement are continually evolving. While citizen interest remains high, the way individuals interact with government is changing along with their expectations. Individuals find themselves with less free time and more options to fill that time. Further, the rapid increase of online social media sites and community engagement tools has brought about new opportunities and challenges. CURRENT PRACTICES Since identifying Community Engagement as a Council priority, staff has researched best practices related to community engagement and examined past City of Fort Collins outreach efforts. From these efforts, key findings were identified: Overall  Citizen participation is recognized as an asset, is valued and encouraged Challenges  Past experiences are mixed, with successful cases of public engagement, as well as documented occurrences of a lack of alignment between Council expectations and staff deliverables.  Authentic and successful public involvement takes time and resources; both are often underestimated in developing public engagement plans.  There is currently no City-wide standardized methodology or language to help align expectations. Opportunities  There is an organization-wide understanding that different levels of engagement are required for different projects. A systematic approach would help to determine the appropriate engagement strategies and techniques.  Existing social media tools support community engagement efforts, but more robust and effective tools exist.  CityWorks 101 and Alumni program provide a successful model for engagement and present further opportunity for utilizing informed citizens. Page 2 of 12 GOALS As a result, this Community Engagement Strategic Plan aims to accomplish the following goals: 1. Better equip City staff to successfully lead public engagement projects. 2. Foster an engaged citizenry. 3. Ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. IMPLEMENTATION Overall, the above goals focus improvement in the following areas: a) Organizational Capability – investing in the training and internal tools needed for staff to be successful and build an organization-wide approach to public engagement b) Council and Community – processes to assure mutual understanding of expectations c) Technology Tools – pilot program to test online public forum, improve use of current tools d) Community Building – strengthening overall community engagement outside of controversial issues; build community leaders for filling positions on Boards and Commissions. GOAL 1: BETTER EQUIP CITY STAFF TO SUCCESSFULLY LEAD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROJECTS Strategies 1A - Create organization-wide community engagement framework, processes, and tools o Public Engagement Spectrum – a tool to help match community involvement expectations with available resources (see attachment 1) o Public Engagement Worksheet – a tool to determine what level of public engagement is needed based on the project and expectations o Create template for a Public Engagement Summary; Summary will be required for all major outreach efforts and sent to City Council prior to implementation. (see attachment 2). The Public Engagement Plan may be incorporated into a general Work Plan Scope. 1B - Create training curriculum for employees to build skills needed to effectively present and facilitate public discussions. Topics include: o Overview of public engagement framework (tools mentioned above) o International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) and/or Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC) models o Available communication and public engagement tools and appropriate use o Public speaking and presentations o Facilitation/when to use a professional facilitator o Handling difficult questions o Managing controversy 1C- Leverage existing expertise within the organization and community. o Establish internal “Community Engagement Resource Group” to act as a sounding board for project managers developing public input plans. o Develop process to assure outside contractors adhere to City community engagement guidelines and principles. o Investigate potential of formalizing a relationship with Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation. Page 3 of 12 GOAL 2: FOSTER AN ENGAGED CITIZENRY Strategies 2A - Improve outreach efforts related to the Development Review Process o Implement Development Review Outreach meetings for large-impact projects. o Develop materials that act as a citizen’s guide to development review. o Create a new position to focus on neighborhood communication and liaison programs related to development. 2B - Implement new tools and technology to foster engagement and easy access to information. o Pilot online public engagement tool that acts as a one-stop-shop for current issues (see attachment 3) o Improve communication related to items before Council  One-stop policy web page  Redesign fcgov main page and other pages (Clerk’s, Cable 14, etc) to better highlight items before Council  Integrate standard feedback opportunities online o Maintain a centralized online community engagement calendar to improve coordination and avoid citizen burnout. o Develop “How to engage with local government campaign” outlining opportunities and procedures to get involved. 2C - Continue existing and create new programs to engage citizens and inspire civic leadership. o CityWorks 101 and alumni programs o Investigate partnership with Leadership Fort Collins and other existing leadership programs o Coordination with Neighborhood Services events/services o Add citizen members to Budgeting for Outcomes Results Teams o Investigate current practices related to Boards and Commissions; evaluate feasibility of CityWorks alumni model o Create Citizen Feedback Group, a demographically reflective group of volunteers used as a sounding board for. 2D - Provide informal opportunities for interaction. o Police Services Community Meetings o Council District Meetings 2E - Improve transparency and reporting of public engagement efforts o Make one-page Public Engagement Summaries available to the public. o Standardize end-of-project report that includes summary of how input influenced the outcome Page 4 of 12 GOAL 3: ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROMOTE EXCELLENCE IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Strategy 3A - Track and measure long-term success through Citizen Survey questions: o Job the City does at listening 2014 Target: 55% 2012: 50% 2010: 44% o Job the City does and welcoming citizen involvement 2014 Target: 68% 2012: 64% 2010: 54% 3B - Gather feedback from City staff and City Council to implement process improvements. o Standard debrief between project managers and Public Engagement Resource Group to identify what went well and areas for improvement. o Collect input from City Council. Sources Halifax Regional Municipality Community Engagement Strategy City of Longmont, CO City of Austin, TX International Association of Public Participation Institute for Participatory Management and Planning - originators of Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC) model Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation Attachments 1) Public Engagement Spectrum 2) Template for one-page Public Engagement Summary and example of one-page Public Engagement Plan Summary for the 2013-2014 Budget 3) Online community engagement overview 4) Longmont Model of Community Focus Groups Page 5 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: KEY STAKEHOLDERS: BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: TIMELINE: Phase 1: Timeframe: Key Messages: Tools and Techniques PHASE 2: Timeframe: Key Messages: Tools and Techniques: PHASE 3: Timeframe: Key Messages: Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: 2013-2014 Budget OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Involve KEY STAKEHOLDERS: General public, Boards and Commissions BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What services should and should not be funded? TIMELINE: March-November 2012 Phase 1: Inform/Consult Timeframe: March-May 2012 Key Messages:  Budget is a blueprint for how the City will accomplish our seven community priorities known as “Key Result Areas”  Methods to get involved and provide feedback  Citizens acting as members on Result Teams to provide in-depth public input Tools and Techniques  Web – update fcgov.com/budget, post spotlights on mainpage  Media – news release announcing citizens serving on result teams; news release promoting public input opportunities  Television - Studio 14 about budget basics, bulletin boards announcing public input opportunities  Print - City News feature story  Newsletters/Email – May/June Neighborhood News, May Economic e-newsletter  Citizen Result Team members PHASE 2: Involve Timeframe: June 2012 Key Messages: how to provide input on what services should be funded and which ones should not.  Interactive web page  Two public events (specific audiences: Boards & Commissions; CityWorks alumni; general public) Tools and Techniques  Web - spotlights on fcgov.com, online interactive tool, social media  Media - City Manager’s Coloradoan column; news release  Television - Bulletin boards on Cable 14  Newsletters/Email - Email invitation to Boards and Commissions and CityWorks alumni  Citizen Result Team members  Public Hearings for the Recommended Budget PHASE 3: Inform/consult August-November 2012 Key Messages:  Announce Recommended Budget; provide information about input received and how it was used in developing recommendation  Check in with community to make sure we captured their feedback; promote final input opportunities. Tools and Techniques  Web – spotlights on fcgov.com, social media  Media – news releases, City Manager’s Coloradoan Column  Newsletters/Email - City News feature, Neighborhood News, Economic Enewseltter  Citizen Result Team members Page 8 of 12 ATTACHMENT 3 Online Community Engagement Overview There are a variety of tools available to help the City of Fort Collins engage in an online community forum. To choose the right tool for our organization, several factors must be considered. With each factor, choices fall somewhere on the spectrum below. Hosting Options Hosting refers to where the forum will “live” online and what url will be used to promote the tool. The City can choose a more formal and structured option by hosting the online community on fcgov.com. A more informal option would be to use, promote, and endorse a tool hosted on a different site. Determining Topics for Discussion Depending on the tool, topics for discussion can either be posted solely by the City of Fort Collins, or we can choose to allow users of the online community to post topics and ideas as well. Guidelines for Engagement Some tools come with a standard set of rules and behavior guidelines that are enforced through automated systems backed up by real people. Other tools rely on users to self-regulate appropriate behavior. User Registration and Authentication The City can determine what information a user would need to provide in order to participate in the online discussion. Some tools require name, address, and email, others simply require an email address, and still others allow users to login using their Facebook accounts. City Participation The City’s role in an online community can range from a centralized approach where we engage as a single organization (as we currently operate our social media tools). Or we can choose to empower individual staff and City leaders to engage as individuals. Level of Documentation and Reporting Generally, the more formal the tool the higher the level of documentation and reporting. Some tools provide in- depth analysis of feedback according to themes, geographic location, etc. The less structured tools do not provide the same level of reporting. Resources The City’s level of engagement, management, and monitoring of an online tool will determine how much resource is required. Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT 3 Online Community Engagement Overview Example: City of Atlanta, Georgia Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual X Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT 3 Online Community Engagement Overview Example: City of Omaha, Nebraska Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual X Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT 3 Online Community Engagement Overview Example: Eau Claire, Minnesota Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual X Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 4 Longmont Model of Community Focus Groups Resident Feedback Panel:  One year commitment  No standing meetings; meet as needed  On-line application  Serve as community “temperature gauge”  30 person panel  Panel provides input on selected issues  Panel is demographically representative of community Application includes:  Gender  Age  Ethnicity  Language  Household make-up  Formal education level  Years in Longmont  Household income (optional) History:  First created during Strategic Plan update  Utilized for Budgeting and potential tax initiative  Now utilized by multiple staff on varying issues Lessons Learned:  Be clear on time commitment  Hard to maintain the representative number of “under 18” 1 Public Engagement and Outreach Process for Council Policy Items City Council Work Session May 8, 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 2 Overview Overview • Define current situation, challenges, and opportunities • Share proposed Strategic Plan • Discuss implementation ATTACHMENT 2 3 Questions Questions 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the overall strategies outlined in the Public Engagement Strategic Plan? 2. Does the structure and common language provided through the Public Engagement Spectrum and Public Engagement Summary work for City Council? ATTACHMENT 2 4 Background Background • 2011: City Council identified need to develop a strategic framework for community involvement organization-wide • Researched other communities and public involvement models • Citizen participation recognized as an asset, is valued and encouraged ATTACHMENT 2 5 Organizational Organizational Assessment Assessment Challenges • Lack of alignment between Council expectations and staff deliverable • Authentic and successful public involvement takes time and resource; both often underestimated • No city-wide standardized methodology ATTACHMENT 2 6 Organizational Organizational Assessment Assessment Opportunities • Public engagement process varies based on project • Existing social media tools support community engagement efforts, but more robust and effective tools exist • CityWorks 101 and alumni program provide a successful model for engagement ATTACHMENT 2 7 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goals: 1. Better equip City staff to successfully lead public engagement projects. 2. Foster an engaged citizenry. 3. Ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. ATTACHMENT 2 8 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goal 1: Better equip City staff to successfully lead public engagement projects. • Create organization-wide community engagement framework, processes, and tools – Public Engagement Spectrum ATTACHMENT 2 9 • Consider this option when… • May not be best option when… • Potential tools & techniques • Citizen role ATTACHMENT 2 10 •Example -Green River Ordinance ATTACHMENT 2 11 •Example -Bike Library -eBikes ATTACHMENT 2 12 •Example -Parking Plan -West Nile Virus ATTACHMENT 2 13 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goal 1: Better equip City staff to successfully lead public engagement projects. • Systematic use of Public Engagement Spectrum • Public Engagement Summary • Training • Leverage expertise ATTACHMENT 2 14 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goal 2: Foster an engaged citizenry. • Improve Development Review outreach • New tools and technology – Online community engagement – One-stop policy page • Citizen engagement programs – Continue CityWorks – Create Citizen Feedback Panel ATTACHMENT 2 15 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goal 2: Foster an engaged citizenry. • Opportunities for informal interaction – Police community meetings – Council District meetings • Improve transparency & reporting – Close the feedback loop ATTACHMENT 2 16 Proposed Proposed Strategic Strategic Plan Plan Goal 3: Ensure accountability and promote excellence in community engagement. • Measure long-term success through Citizen Survey: – Listening to citizens – Welcoming citizen involvement • Gather feedback from City staff and City Council to implement process improvements ATTACHMENT 2 17 Why Why Online Online Engagement? Engagement? • Increasingly difficult to attract large crowds to public events • Increase of general online engagement • Best-practices cities moving in this direction • Request from citizens ATTACHMENT 2 18 Online Online Engagement Engagement Options Options Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual ATTACHMENT 2 19 Online Online Engagement Engagement Factors to consider • Who hosts the tool? • Who determines topics for discussion? • Guidelines for engagement • User registration and authentication • Should the City participate as an organization or as individuals? • Level of documentation and reporting • Resources ATTACHMENT 2 20 Online Online Engagement Engagement Options Options Formal & Highly Structured Informal/ Casual X ATTACHMENT 2 21 Implementation Implementation Complete or in progress • Standardized framework (limited basis) • Hiring of Development Review Outreach person • Internal Resource Group (limited basis) Additional Resources Needed • Internal Training • Online tools and other communication improvements • Monitoring, reporting and follow-up • Citizen Feedback Group ATTACHMENT 2 22 Questions Questions 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the overall strategies outlined in the Public Engagement Strategic Plan? 2. Does the structure and common language provided through the Public Engagement Spectrum and public engagement plan summary work for City Council? ATTACHMENT 2 DATE: May 8, 2012 STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Transfort Fare Structure, Funding Agreements and MAX Introductory Period. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is seeking direction from City Council on whether or not it would like to see changes to the Transfort fare structure. In order for Transfort to keep pace with rising expenses and to attain its targeted revenue recovery rate of 20% for fares, passes, and funding agreements, Transfort evaluated three options against the status quo for Council consideration (status quo, increase, decrease, or hybrid). Transfort has not altered its rate structure for either fares or passes since 2004, but has adjusted its agreements in the last three years (e.g., with Associated Students of Colorado State University). Since 2004, the Mountain States Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased over 17%. Transfort will continue to review its fare structure every two years in conjunction with the City budget cycle. Transfort and City management reviewed the Transfort fare structure in 2006 when the Dial-A-Ride service was adjusted to ADA minimum service levels. Management decided that a fare increase was not warranted at that time as the goal was to shift senior and disabled customers, who are able to access the fixed route system, to the less costly service ($2.42 per fixed route trip compared to $25 per Dial-A-Ride trip). Since that adjustment in 2006, ridership on Dial-A-Ride has decreased by 56%, while senior and disabled ridership increased by 54% on fixed route service. The cost savings of providing the senior and disabled trips by the less costly fixed route service has had a cumulative savings of $4.3 million of additional expenses if the service had been provided by Dial-A-Ride. Transfort staff is also seeking direction regarding an introductory fare-free period for the MAX service planned to begin in May 2014. Many transit agencies across the country have offered initial fare-free service to help promote a new service and provide an opportunity for citizens to learn the procedures of riding. The implementation of MAX presents an opportunity to attract new riders to the system. Transfort is seeking direction on whether or not Council would like to offer a fare-free period on the MAX service. Three options have been evaluated for Council consideration: fare-free service from May – December 2014; fare-free service from May – July 2014; or no fare-free period. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. The Transfort fare structure has not been amended since 2004. Based on targeted recovery rates and elasticity evaluations, does Council support amending the current fare structure (options evaluated include: fare increase, decrease, status quo and a hybrid option)? May 8, 2012 Page 2 2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare-free period to introduce the new MAX service that is planned to begin May 2014 (alternatives evaluated include a seven month and three month fare-free period)? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Transfort’s fare structure accounts for standard, prepaid and discounted fares which are collected through fares (single rides and passes) and funding agreements (bulk passes). The revenue generated from fares and agreements is just one part of Transfort’s operating revenue. In 2011, revenue from agreements and fares accounted for $970,000 or 18.2% of Transfort's operating expenses. Transfort staff developed three options to evaluate a comparison to the existing fare structure using an industry accepted elasticity model that has been calibrated to the Fort Collins community. The first option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The second option evaluates a 20% decrease in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The third and final option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase to only the fare categories that are currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery. The fare categories currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery include the CSU semester pass (for part-time CSU students); the adult monthly pass; the annual senior and disabled passes; Passfort (an employer-based program that allows local employers to purchase annual Transfort bus passes at a “bulk rate”); and youth ridership. Youth ridership is funded through an annual Bohemian Foundation grant that equates to 9% revenue recovery per youth trip. Table 1: Elasticity Analysis of Three Fare Structure Options Current Fare Structure 20% Increase in Fares/Agreements 20% Decrease in Fares/Agreements Hybrid Option Total Ridership 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316 Change from Current 0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821 Total Revenue $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166 Change from Current 0 $169,180 -$172,433 $38,260 Revenue Recovery 18.2% 21.50% 14.9% 18.9% If City Council provides direction to make changes to the existing Transfort fare structure, staff will begin the federally-required public process and in-depth evaluation of impacts according to the following general timeline: May 2012 – August 2012: Refine fare change recommendations and projections and conduct the following required analysis: • Assess the effects of the proposed fare change on minority and low-income populations. • Assess the alternatives available for people affected by the fare change. May 8, 2012 Page 3 • Describe and document the actions proposed to minimize, mitigate, or offset any adverse effects of proposed fare and service changes on minority and low-income populations. • Determine which, if any of the proposals under consideration, would have a disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and low-income riders. September 2012 – October 2012: Develop a Public Outreach Plan which will also include specialized outreach for disadvantaged populations. November 2012 – January 2013: Transfort will hold a public meeting to receive oral and written comments regarding the proposed fare changes. A minimum 14-day notice of this meeting will be provided via publication in the City’s newspaper of record. The notice includes the time and location of the public meeting; a summary of proposed language; specifies the address where written comments can be mailed; and informs the public of alternative formats available to assist in this public process. The meeting would be scheduled at least 30 days prior to any fare increases being implemented. The recommended fare change along with the comments from the public meeting would then be presented to City Council for an amendment to the existing Transfort fare structure. Introductory Period for MAX Service Transfort staff is also seeking direction regarding an introductory fare-free period for the MAX service planned to begin in May 2014. Many transit agencies across the country have offered initial fare-free service to help promote a new service and provide an opportunity for people to learn the procedures of riding. The implementation of MAX presents an opportunity to attract new riders to the system. Transfort is seeking direction on whether City Council would like to offer a fare-free period on the MAX service. Three options have been evaluated for Council consideration: fare-free service from May – December 2014, fare-free service from May – July 2014, or no fare-free period. Current ridership projections of approximately 4,000 trips per day were estimated for opening year of MAX service. However, over 90% of all trips on MAX will be pre-paid through passes, the ASCSU agreement, and the Bohemian Foundation grant. Therefore, 10% of daily trips on MAX are expected to pay a single ride fare, which amounts to $79,108 over the eight month period of May through December. Table 2 below illustrates the effects of 10% of the expected opening year MAX ridership paying full-fare, fare-free May through December 2014, and fare-free May through July 2014. May 8, 2012 Page 4 Table 2: Effects of Fare Free Service to MAX’s Revenue Recovery and Ridership MAX Projections based on full fare payment* Impact of May – December Fare Free Period* Impact of May – July Fare Free Period ** Total MAX Ridership – Single Ride*** 53,457 66,822 58,803 Variance from full fare payment - +13,365 +5,346 Total MAX Revenue – Single Ride*** $79,108 - $41,014 Variance from full fare payment - -$79,108 -$38,094 Revenue Recovery – Single Ride Fares 47% 0 22% *Data represents May through December of 2014 **Data represents May through July fare free and August – December regular fare ***Single Ride accounts for both $1.25 adult fare and $0.60 senior and disabled single ride fares NOTE: Minimal projected impact on pass sales ATTACHMENTS 1. Transfort Fare Analysis 2. Draft Transportation Board Minutes from April 18, 2012 3. Powerpoint presentation 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Transfort Fare Analysis Transfort has not implemented a fare change since 2004, and since that time the Mountain States Region Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased over 17%. In order for Transfort to keep pace with rising expenses and to attain its targeted revenue recovery rate of 20% for fares, passes and funding agreements, Transfort is reviewing three options to the current fare structure. The three options currently being reviewed are 1) a 20% increase to all fares and agreements; 2) a 20% decrease to all fares and agreements; and 3) an option which increases select categories that are not meeting a 20% revenue recovery. The current Transfort fare strategy consists of a Flat Fare system, which is the simplest and most common fare strategy used in the transit industry. Transfort combines this strategy with several prepaid fare options. Transfort’s current fares are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Current Transfort Fare Structure Fare Type Current Fare / Agreement 2011 Ridership Percentage of Ridership 2011 Revenue Revenue Per Trip Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 122,889 6.28% $ 190,370 $ 1.55 Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 7,662 0.39% $ 4,597 $ 0.60 Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 2,015 0.10% $ 1,209 $ 0.60 CSU Semester $ 25.00 8,181 0.42% $ 2,900 $ 0.35 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 28,761 1.47% $ 18,311 $ 0.64 Monthly Pass $ 25.00 163,584 8.36% $ 63,988 $ 0.39 Annual Senior $ 25.00 77,667 3.97% $ 9,550 $ 0.12 Annual Disabled $ 25.00 251,128 12.83% $ 17,775 $ 0.07 Adult Annual $ 154.00 28,582 1.46% $ 15,708 $ 0.55 Passfort $ 50.00 193,483 9.89% $ 46,100 $ 0.24 Day Pass $ 3.00 2,183 0.11% $ 1,398 $ 0.64 ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 728,773 37.24% $ 536,000 $ 0.74 Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 304,229 15.55% $ 60,000 $ 0.20 TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP Notes: Senior and Disabled Single Ride fares are required by Federal law to have a 50% discount from the Adult Single Ride fare. Revenue per Trip depicts the average fare customers pay per trip within each fare type. Adult Single Riders often do not have exact change; therefore, the average fare paid comes out to be more than the Adult Single Ride fare. This calculation also breaks down passes and funding agreements to determine the average fare, which as calculated by the funding agreement total, divided by the total number of riders within that fare type. Two Fare Categories are funded through Funding Agreements:  Youth passengers: An annual grant of $60,000 is awarded to Transfort by the Bohemian Foundation and 304,229 youth rides were provided in 2011. o Average Youth Fare = $0.20 2  CSU students: A funding agreement is established tri-annually between Transfort and Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU). In 2011, Transfort received $536,000 from ASCSU in return for unlimited ridership for eligible CSU students, which accounted for 728,773 trips, or 37% of Transfort’s total ridership in 2011. o Average CSU Student Fare = $0.74 Transfort’s last major fare increase occurred in 2004 when the standard fare increased by 25%, the monthly pass increased by over 30%, the 10-ride booklet increased by 29%, and the senior and disabled pass increased by 31%. Two years following these fare changes the ridership in the single ride category decreased by 10%, monthly pass ridership decreased by 29%, there was no change in ridership to the 10-ride booklet, and a 27% increase in ridership to the senior and disabled pass category even though the fare increased by 31%. During this same period the passfort ridership increased by 56%, passfort is an employer-based program that allows employers to purchase annual Transfort bus passes at a “bulk rate” and in turn provide or sell them to their employees. As you can see there is not always a direct correlation between fare changes and ridership, which makes the science of predicting the elasticity of fares to ridership somewhat difficult. In conducting our analysis Transfort utilized an industry accepted elasticity model integrated with historical data from Transfort. Objectives In conducting the analysis of the three fare change options being presented it is important to not lose sight of the customer and Transfort’s objectives in fare collection. The following list outlines Transfort’s objectives as it relates to fare collection:  To promote fixed-route ridership by making fare structure attractive to users  To improve the farebox recovery ratio  To improve the efficiency of fare collection  To promote the equity of fare payment among riders  To ensure cash handling procedures are as streamlined and as secure as possible As Staff determined fare prices to analyze, it was important to consider standard currency amounts, i.e. decreasing the $0.60 senior fare to $0.50 rather than the actual 20% reduction which would be $0.48. It is preferable to minimize the number of coins and/or bills that a passenger must handle both as a convenience to passengers as well as to speed the boarding process. For instance, the current $0.60 senior single ride fare requires two coins. A fare decrease of exactly 20% to $0.48, would require six coins (a quarter, two dimes and three pennies), while a decrease to $0.50 only requires two coins. In addition, prepaid fares (discounted passes and agreements) on the fixed-route system should be encouraged as it meets Transfort Fare Collection Objectives in the following way:  Guarantees ridership and revenue by the customer  Reduces the chance of non-payment of fares and reduces the amount of cash in the fareboxes, thus reducing cash handling expenses 3  Allows Transfort to more easily track its ridership base and target its marketing effort accordingly  Accelerates boarding times  Encourages increased ridership as the cost of the ride is not required at the time the decision to take the ride is made Analysis Fare elasticity refers to the increase or decrease in ridership when a change in fare price occurs. Data from research in this field is mixed but generally, the transit industry accepts the Simpson-Curtin fare “mid-point elasticity” equation: RA = RB x (FA/FB)E Where: RA = Ridership after Fare Change RB = Ridership before Fare Change FA = Fare after the Fare Change FB = Fare before the Fare Change E = Elasticity Value The Elasticity Value has a negative sign reflecting the fact that ridership tends to decrease as fares increase. The value applied for “E” is based upon the change in transit ridership that has been observed in peer transit systems and the value being analyzed. Many transit studies have argued that any estimates in fare elasticity must also take into account the size of the service area, the cost of alternative transportation, frequency of service, ease of use, time of service (peak or off-peak), number of transfers, age of the passengers, trip purpose, and countless other criteria. In short, they argue that one model does not necessarily fit all. For example, in a large city like San Francisco, elasticity of demand is significantly lower than average because it is much more difficult to travel by automobile compared to a smaller community. In this situation, San Francisco residents would be less inclined to abandon transit in the event of a fare increase than in a smaller urban area, like Fort Collins, where it is easier to travel by automobile. Though research surrounding transit fare elasticity levels are mixed, it appears that every transit location has its own unique characteristics when it comes to service. However, it does seem that certain findings are common to all:  Elasticities for fare increases do not differ from those for fare decreases  Small cities are more elastic than large cities  Short-distance trips are more elastic than long-distance trips  Fare elasticities rise with income and fall with age  Of all trip purposes, the work trip is the most inelastic  Ridership is more responsive to improvement in headways than in-vehicle time 4 For the purposes of this analysis, Transfort proposes a dual-tier approach to assigning elasticity levels: projected elasticity of 3% (Simpson-Curtain model) for single ride fares and projected elasticity of 1.5% for each of the discounted pass types - the hypothesis being that passes are less elastic and that ridership will not be as negatively affected as industry statistics dictate. Peer Review Staff has compared Transfort fares against other peer transit agencies within Northern Colorado, as these areas tend to have similar costs of living and socioeconomic statuses. Transfort currently charges less for each of its fare categories than the average price of its peers across the same fare categories as seen in Table 2. Table 2: Fare Structure Peer Analysis FIXED ROUTE FORT COLLINS LOVELAND GREELEY DENVER (Min. Zones) COLORADO SPRINGS PUEBLO PEER AVERAGE $ VARIANCE TO FT. COLLINS Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.25 $ 1.50 $ 2.25 $ 1.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.55 $ 0.30 Seniors (60+) $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.50 $ 0.76 $ 0.16 Disabled & Medicare $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.50 $ 0.76 $ 0.16 Youth (17 and younger) Free $ 0.50 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.59 Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 4.50 $ 3.00 $ 3.75 $ 0.75 Transfers Free Free $ 0.25 Free Free Free N/A N/A 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 N/A N/A $ 20.00 N/A N/A $ 20.00 $ 10.00 Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 50.00 $ 79.00 $ 63.00 $ 35.00 $ 51.40 $ 26.40 Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 434.50 N/A N/A $ 161.50 $ 136.50 Annual Disabled & Medicare $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 434.50 N/A N/A $ 161.50 $ 136.50 Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 180.00 $ 869.00 $ 524.50 $ 370.50 Fare data taken directly fom Peer Group websites - 1/9/2012 TRANSFORT PEER REVIEW (COLORADO) In conducting this fare change analysis, Transfort developed three options to evaluate in comparison to the existing fare structure. The first option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The second option evaluates a 20% decrease in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The third and final option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase to the fare categories that are currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery. The fare categories currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery are the CSU semester pass (for part-time CSU students), the monthly pass, the annual senior and disabled passes, passfort, and youth ridership. Youth ridership is funded through an annual Bohemian Foundation grant that equates to 9% revenue recovery per youth trip. The 2011 ridership distribution and revenue recovery per fare category can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. 5 6 Figure 1: 2011 Ridership Distributions by Fare Category 6.40% 0.40% 0.10% 0.43% 1.50% 8.52% 4.05% 13.09% 1.49% 10.08% 0.11% 37.97% 15.85% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Adult Single Ride Senior Single Ride Disabled Single Ride CSU Semester 10 Ride Booklet Monthly Pass Annual Senior Annual Disabled Adult Annual Passfort Day Pass ASCSU Agreement Bohemian Foundation Grant % RIDERSHIP BY FARE CATEGORY 7 Figure 2: 2011 Revenue Recoveries by Fare Category % REVENUE RECOVERY PER FARE CATEGORY 64.01% 24.79% 14.65% 16.16% 5.08% 2.92% 22.71% 9.85% 26.46% 30.43% 8.15% 24.79% 26.31% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Adult Single Ride Senior Single Ride Disabled Single Ride CSU Semester 10 Ride Booklet Monthly Pass Annual Senior Annual Disabled Adult Annual Passfort Day Pass ASCSU Agreement Bohemian Foundation Grant 8 Option 1: 20% Increase in Fares Table 3 illustrates the elasticity of ridership with a general 20% increase in fares. This alternative reduces ridership by 30,561 passengers per year, but revenue is increased by $169,180 annually. Table 3: Effects of 20% increase in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and Ridership Fare Type Current Fare New Fare Ridership Change Per 20% Fare Change Revised Revenue Recovery Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.50 -7,373 75.13% $ 19,662 Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.75 -460 30.99% $ 805 Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.75 -121 30.99% $ 212 CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -245 17.58% $ 476 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 11.00 -863 32.15% $ 3,398 Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -4,908 19.40% $ 10,494 Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -2,330 6.10% $ 1,566 Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -7,534 3.51% $ 2,915 Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 185.00 -857 27.28% $ 2,596 Passfort $ 50.00 $ 60.00 -5,804 11.81% $ 7,560 Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 3.75 -65 33.08% $ 297 ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 643,200 No Change 36.47% $ 107,200 Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 72,000 No Change 9.78% $ 12,000 Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -30,561 21.50% $ 169,180 EFFECTS OF 20% INCREASE IN FARE PRICE TO TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP 9 Option 2: 20% Reduction in Fares Table 4 illustrates the elasticity of ridership with a general 20% reduction in fares. This alternative, as opposed to increasing fares, increases ridership by 30,561, but decreases revenue by $172,433 annually. Table 4: Effects of 20% Decrease in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and Ridership Fare Type Current Fare New Fare Ridership Change Per 20% Fare Change Revised Revenue Recovery Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.00 7,373 52.98% $ (23,349) Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.50 460 20.66% $ (536) Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.50 121 20.66% $ (141) CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 20.00 245 13.55% $ (136) 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 7.00 863 18.36% $ (5,148) Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 20.00 4,908 11.68% $ (16,358) Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 20.00 2,330 4.60% $ (647) Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 20.00 7,534 2.51% $ (2,093) Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 125.00 857 20.13% $ (1,367) Passfort $ 50.00 $ 40.00 5,804 8.89% $ (3,225) Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 2.50 65 21.43% $ (232) ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 428,800 No Change 24.31% $ (107,200) Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 48,000 No Change 6.52% $ (12,000) Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements 30,561 14.90% $ (172,433) EFFECTS OF 20% DECREASE IN FARE PRICE TO TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP 10 Option 3: Hybrid Alternative The Hybrid Alternative proposes a 20% increase in fare categories based on their current ability to meet the preferred 20% revenue recovery rate. Table 5 illustrates the following individual fare categories that were increased in this alternative; all other fare category rates were left as they are currently: Table 5: Fare Categories that fall below 20% Revenue Recovery Fare Category Current Fare Proposed Fare CSU Semester $25 $30 Monthly Pass $25 $30 Annual Senior Pass $25 $30 Annual Disabled Pass $25 $30 Passfort $50 $75 Bohemian Foundation Grant $60,000 $72,000 Table 6 describes the elasticity of ridership based on the hybrid alternative fare changes. This alternative is a more middle ground approach as it decreases ridership less than the general 20% increase, of only 20,821, but produces a less desirable revenue amount of $38,260. Table 6: Effects of Targeted 20% increases in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and Ridership Fare Type Current Fare New Fare Ridership Change Per 20% Fare Change Revised Revenue Recovery Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.25 64.01% $ - Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.60 24.79% $ - Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.60 24.79% $ - CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -245 15.76% $ 127 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 9.00 26.31% $ - Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -4,908 20.63% $ 15,243 Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -2,330 5.57% $ 603 Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -7,534 3.35% $ 1,950 Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 154.00 22.71% $ - Passfort $ 50.00 $ 75.00 -5,804 11.99% $ 8,337 Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 3.00 26.46% $ - ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 536,000 No Change 30.39% $ - Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 72,000 No Change 9.78% $ 12,000 Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -20,821 18.90% $ 38,260 EFFECTS OF HYBRID CHANGES TO FARES ON TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP 11 Introductory Period for MAX Service – Background/Analysis Current MAX ridership projections of approximately 4,000 trips per day were estimated for opening year of MAX service. However, over 90% of all trips on MAX will be pre- paid through passes, the ASCSU agreement, and the Bohemian Foundation grant. Therefore, 10% of daily trips on MAX are expected to pay a single ride fare, which amounts to $79,108 over the eight month period of May through December. Table 2 below illustrates the effects of 10% of the expected opening year MAX ridership paying full-fare, fare-free May through December 2014, and fare-free May through July 2014. Table 2: Effects of Fare Free Service to MAX’s Revenue Recovery and Ridership MAX Projections based on full fare payment* Impact of May – December Fare Free Period* Impact of May – July Fare Free Period ** Total MAX Ridership – Single Ride*** 53,457 66,822 58,803 Variance from full fare payment - +13,365 +5,346 Total MAX Revenue – Single Ride*** $79,108 - $41,014 Variance from full fare payment - -$79,108 -$38,094 Revenue Recovery – Single Ride Fares 47% 0 22% * Data represents May through December of 2014 ** Data represents May through July fare free and August – December regular fare *** Single Ride accounts for both $1.25 adult fare and $0.60 senior and disabled single ride fares NOTE: Minimal projected impact on pass sales ATTACHMENT 2 ***DRAFT*** MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD April 18, 2012 6:00 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557 Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864 Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029 Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, and Communications Director, 416.2029 Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601 Clint Skutchan John Hutto, Police Chief, 221.6553 Olga Duvall Captain Jim Szakmeister, 221.6542 Pat Jordan Kurt Ravenschlag, Interim General Manager, Transfort, 221.6386 Eric Shenk Sid Simonson Kevin O’Toole Shane Miller ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Councilmember Ben Manvel Mary Atchison 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:04p with a quorum present. 2. AGENDA REVIEW Transfort Staff will move to 2nd on the Agenda. With that change, the agenda was approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jordan moved to accept the March 2012 Board minutes as written. Simonson seconded. The March minutes were approved unanimously. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON Councilmember Manvel was unable to attend. A. Transfort Fare Policy – Kurt Ravenschlag, Interim General Manager & Emma McArdle, Transit Planner Action requested: Would the Board like to see changes to the Transfort Fare Structure (increase, decrease, or hybrid)? Would the Transportation Board like to see us pursue a free introductory period for MAX service? Current Fare Structure: Fare Type Current Fare / Agreement 2011 Ridership Revenue Per Trip Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 122,889 $55 1. Senior Single Ride $60 0.7,662 $60 0. Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 2,015 $60 0. CSU Semester $ 25.00 8,181 $35 0. 10 Ride Booklet $00 9.28,761 $ 0.64 Monthly Pass $ 25.00 163,584 $39 0. Annual Senior $ 25.00 77,667 $ 0.12 Annual Disabled $ 25.00 251,128 $07 0. Adult Annual $ 154.00 28,582 $ 0.55 Passfort $00 50.193,483 $24 0. Day Pass $00 3.2,183 $64 0. Dial A Ride $50 2.37,851 $ 3.28 ASCSU Agreement $000 536,728,773 $ 0.74 Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 304,229 $20 0. TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP Goal: 20% revenue recovery system-wide. Many meet that, but a few fall short. Flat Fare System: Standard, prepaid and discounted Fares. $1.25 for services. Funding Agreements: Ram Card average Fare $.074. Youth grant from Bohemian Foundation average Fare $0.20. 2011 Overall Recovery Rate 18.2% Fare Collection Objectives: Promote fixed-route ridership by making fare structure attractive to users. Improve fare box recovery ration Improve efficiency of fare collection Improve equity of fare payment among riders Ensure cash handling procedures are as streamlined and secure as possible If a fare increases, what is the impact on ridership? The theory is that an increase in fare produces a decrease in ridership and a decrease in fare will increase ridership. History of Fare Changes: Last increase in 2004 25 – 31% Fare increases Lack of definitive relationship between Fare change and ridership 2004 – 2005 4.5% increase in total ridership 2004 – 2006 29% decrease in monthly pass ridership 2004 – 2006 27% increase in senior and disabled ridership even with a 31% increase in Fares 2004 – 2006 56% increase in PassFort ridership Transfort Fares are below all peer transit agencies in all categories. Dual-tiered approach to Elasticity. Single ride Fares: 3% E Value. Passes: 1.5% E Value. Alternatives: 1. 20% increase in Fares and Funding Agreements 2. 20% decrease in Fares and Funding Agreements 3. Hybrid option – increasing Fare categories that are not attaining a 20% Revenue Recovery (CSU Semester; Monthly Pass; Annual Senior Pass; Annual Disabled Pass; PassFort; Bohemian Foundation Grant (Youth) Results by Alternative: 1. -30,561 in ridership +$170,980 in revenue 2. +30,561 increase in ridership; -$172,422 in revenue 3. -20821 in ridership; +$38,260 in revenue Robert: Did you look at “catch-up” after the first year of a change? Ravenschlag: Yes. Our ridership in the last few years has continued to increase. The elasticity equation is based on industry standards and a bit of gut reaction based on our historical trends, though our data is very limited. Atchison: Don’t you need to factor in external factors like $4/gallon of gas, etc. Ravenschlag: Yes. Because of those factors, if gas is $5/gallon we could increase our fares and still see an increase in ridership. Current Fare Structure 20% Increase in Fares/Agreements 20% Decrease in Fares/Agreements Hybrid Option Total Ridership 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316 Change from Current 0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821 Total Revenue $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166 Change from Current 0 $170,980 -$172,433 $38,260 Shenk: Is the 20% increase an industry standard? Ravenschlag: It is what we determined to be a good target based on industry standards. Our recovery is better than Loveland, for example. We have the option of leaving our fares as-is, but needed to examine whether a change is warranted. Robert: Will MAX blend into this or is that a separate Fare? Ravenschlag: It will be blended into this, and will give us a higher Recovery rate. Council will have the option of having that revenue offset subsidies. I would prefer to offer more service, but that is Council’s decision to make. Miller: What would it cost us to do the studies on people affected by the change? Ravenschlag: It would be done in-house by our Transit Planners and Financial Coordinator. Atchison: I’m curious how much it would cost to change marketing materials, changes in signage, outreach, etc. Ravenschlag: That is a good question. I don’t have an answer right now. Robert: How long do you recommend the new Fares stay in place? Ravenschlag: We would like to reevaluate Fares every 5 years. The last time it was evaluated was 2006 but no changes were made. Introductory Fare Free Period for MAX? May 2014 – December 2014 Most agencies introducing a new service offer an introductory fare free period. We can use it as an opportunity to introduce people to the service and help them learn it. Based on projections and prorated for 7 months: 773,892 rides on MAX. Increase in revenue of $390,308. 90% of fares are from pre-paid passes, ASCSU, and the Bohemian Foundation Grant. We actually see a higher Revenue Recovery Rate offering a free introductory service period. Skutchan: There is a tendency to make it simple and clean, but “free up to a certain point in the day” might be an important factor. I’d like to see other options. There seems to be a benefit to the downtown to partner in the costs of offering a free introductory period. Are there other models to look at? Ravenschlag: We have talked to to other agencies about that. I can ask again about other options to offset the expenses. Atchison: I would expect Council to ask how you will transition into charging Fares. That could be a barrier. Miller: I was wondering about the limited hours free fare period. Wouldn’t that be challenging? Ravenschlag: It could be. Some transit agencies have fare free zones. Either way you have challenges. It is easier from an administrative standpoint to have either a Fare or no Fare. We can ask Council if they want us to seek out partnerships to cover the loss. O’Toole: Are there systems that do not offer a fare free period? Ravenschlag: Yes. We think it is a good thing to consider. O’Toole: Why such a long free period? Ravenschlag: Administratively it is an easy option. Eugene, OR had a year long plus free period. Simonson: Is that a standard time period? Once you give it away for such a long time it would be hard to take that away. 3 or 4 months seems fair. Revenue Recovery 18.2% 21.50% 14.9% 18.9% Jordan: I suggested that all “Newcomer” seniors be given a free month long Transfort pass. O’Toole: What if this backfires and you have too much ridership? Ravenschlag: That is a good problem to have if you have resources to fix it. Atchison: Are kids going to be able to ride MAX for free? Ravenschlag: Because of our Flat Fare system it will be included and not considered a premium, so yes, they can ride it for free. Skutchan: Is MAX such a different service that we should consider it a premium service and put a special Fare system on it? It seems that this is the time to use that as a conversation with Council. Miller: I would support anything that maximizes usage of the Transit system and lowering the cost of transportation systemically. Atchison: I like the idea of a free time period, but I’m not thrilled about charging youth. If you can get Bohemian to contribute more, that would be great. I’m curious how we capture the money of people who are willing to pay more for the service. O’Toole: I like Clint’s view. I’d like to see it examined for MAX. Ravenschlag: The challenge we have at Transfort is that my peers in Transportation Planning, Parking Services, and Engineering do such a good job that it is easy to drive and park in Fort Collins. The challenge is attracting those riders who wouldn’t normally use Transfort. Skutchan: I disagree with Mary, but I think kids should have to pay something, even if it is just a quarter. Giving it to them for free does nothing to demonstrate the value of the system. If, as free users, they aren’t converting to paid customers, we aren’t successful. Shenk: You say there were 304,000 kids who rode last year. Why are that many kids riding it? Ravenschlag: That is 304,000 rides. Many don’t have driver’s licenses and we are convenient. We service all of the schools. Miller: A lot of the trips the kids are taking on the bus are trips that they wouldn’t have transportation for because their parents wouldn’t drive them. The bus absorbs some trips that parents would be driving. Ravenschlag: We looked at increasing a contribution from the Bohemian Foundation for youth, instead of a Fare paid by the kids. Robert: Of the total Transfort budget, what percentage of the total revenue budget are we talking? Ravenschlag: 18.2% Simonson: A 20% increase across the board would result in about an average of $.09 increase per fare category. McArdle: The 20% increase is approximate. It is $0.25 for a single ride, $0.15 for a senior ride. We round up to avoid odd change. Skutchan: Were the increases in 2004 heavy on the passes? Are there models showing a 30% recovery for passes, example? Have other agencies looked at that? Ravenschlag: Our 20% across the board is just a goal we’ve set. I can’t speak to what other agencies have done. Simonson: When does the CSU agreement expire? Ravenschlag: In a month. We are negotiating now and are looking at a 2-year agreement instead of a 3-year agreement. Atchison: I think it would be beneficial to look at raising the price of the passes. It would help out the disabled and seniors with their fares. A hybrid approach seems best. Miller: Did the hybrid exempt those? Ravenschlag: We work with community agencies and sell Ride Assist passes for low income people. Those agencies often sell them at even a lower cost and sometimes give them away for free. Employers also provide discounted passes to employees. Skutchan: Not all seniors are equal from an income standpoint. It seems that it should be needs based rather than age based. That is an extreme discount. Ravenschlag: We do hear from seniors and disabled who say they could afford to pay more. The structure you are seeing is from Council direction. O’Toole: I would like to see any increase in revenue from Fare revisions go to service enhancements. Miller: I move that Transportation Board recommend no fare change based on the information presented. Duvall seconded the motion. Discussion: Atchison: I support the motion, but would like to see a review when MAX comes online and have that reflected in the letter. Vote: The motion passed six to four, with Frazier, Atchison, Duvall, Miller, Robert, and Steen voting in favor of the motion and Simonson, Skutchan, O’Toole, Shenk voting against the motion. Miller: I move that we recommend a free introductory fare period for MAX. O’Toole seconded the motion. Discussion: The majority of the Board would like to see a shorter free introductory period. Skutchan would like to see more options before giving carte blanche. The motion passed with Simonson and Skutchan voting against the motion. 10. OTHER BUSINESS  None 11. ADJOURN The meeting concluded at 9:12p. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Polly Bennett Executive Administrative Assistant Planning, Development, & Transportation 1 Transfort Transfort Fare Fare Structure Structure and and Funding Funding Agreements Agreements Staff: Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort Interim General Manager City Council Work Session May 8, 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 2 General General Direction Direction Sought Sought 1. Transfort Fare Structure has not been amended since 2004. Based on targeted recovery rates and elasticity evaluations, does Council support amending the current Fare Structure? 2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free period to introduce the new MAX service that is planned to begin May 2014? ATTACHMENT 3 3 Fare Fare Change Change Process Process If Council provides direction to change the current fare structure the following analysis and public outreach will be conducted: – May 2012 – August 2012: Conduct analysis of impacts to minority and low income populations. – September 2012 – October 2012: Develop a Public Outreach Plan which will also include specialized outreach for disadvantaged populations. – November 2012 – January 2013: Conduct Public Outreach and Council Action ATTACHMENT 3 4 Fare Fare Change Change History History • Last fare change occurred in 2004 • Fare structure was reviewed in 2006 with Dial-A-Ride service change to ADA minimum requirement – Fixed Route fares were not adjusted to encourage senior and disabled ridership on the less costly fixed route service ($2.42 per fixed route trip compared to $25 per Dial-A-Ride trip) ATTACHMENT 3 5 Fare Fare Change Change History History ((cont.cont.) ) • Since the 2006 Dial-A-Ride change to ADA minimum service: – Senior and disabled ridership increased 54% on fixed route. – Dial-A-Ride ridership decreased by 56%. – Cumulative savings of $4.3 million of additional costs from shifting senior and disabled passengers to less costly fixed route service. ATTACHMENT 3 6 Senior and Disabled Ridership 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year R idership by Mode Fixed Route Ridership Paratranist Ridership Senior Senior and and Disabled Disabled Ridership Ridership Summary Summary Since Since 2006 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 7 Reason Reason for for Fare Fare Review Review • Consumer Price Index has increased 17% since 2004 • Current Fare Recovery system-wide is below targeted 20% • Senior and disabled ridership has shifted to fixed route service • Transfort will be reviewing fare structure every two years in conjunction with the City’s budget cycle ATTACHMENT 3 8 Transfort’’s Transfort s Current Current Fare Fare Structure Structure Fare Type Current Fare / Agreement 2011 Ridership Adult Single Ride $25 1.122,889 Senior Single Ride $60 0.7,662 Disabled Single Ride $60 0.2,015 CSU Semester $00 25.8,181 10 Ride Booklet $00 9.28,761 Monthly Pass $00 25.163,584 Annual Senior $00 25.77,667 Annual Disabled $00 25.251,128 Adult Annual $00 154.28,582 Passfort $00 50.193,483 Day Pass $00 3.2,183 ASCSU Agreement $000 536,728,773 Bohemian Foundation Grant $000 60,304,229 TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP ATTACHMENT 3 9 Fare Fare Structure Structure Summary Summary • Flat Fare System, consisting of: – Standard, prepaid and discounted fares • Funding Agreements – RamCard (average Fare $0.74) – Youth Grant from Bohemian Foundation (average Fare $0.20) • 20% Preferred Fare Revenue Recovery • 2011 Overall Recovery Rate of 18.2% (currently the highest recovery to date) ATTACHMENT 3 10 Revenue Recovery per Fare Category 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Adult Single Ride Senior Single Ride Disabled Single Ride CSU Semester 10 Ride Booklet Monthly Pass Annual Senior Annual Disabled Adult Annual Passfort Day Pass ASCSU Agreement Bohemian Foundation Grant Revenue Recovery per Fare Category ATTACHMENT 3 11 Fare Fare Collection Collection Objectives Objectives • To promote fixed-route ridership by making fare structure attractive to users • To improve the fare box recovery ratio • To improve the efficiency of fare collection • To promote the equity of fare payment among riders • To ensure cash handling procedures are as streamlined and secure as possible • To encourage prepaid passes ATTACHMENT 3 12 Elasticity Elasticity Analysis Analysis • The decrease or increase in ridership when a change in fare price occurs. – In summary: • Fares ↑ = Ridership ↓ • Fares ↓ = Ridership ↑ • “Mid-point Elasticity” equation RA = RB x (FA/FB)E • The E value is adjusted based on the individual community’s fare change history, size and other factors such as current pricing. ATTACHMENT 3 13 History History of of Fare Fare Changes Changes Last Fare increase occurred in 2004 – 25-31% Fare increases to select fare categories – 2004 – 2005: 4.5% increase in Total Ridership – Transfort determined a lack of definitive relationship between fare change and ridership ATTACHMENT 3 14 Peer Peer Review Review FIXED ROUTE PEER AVERAGE $ VARIANCE TO FT. COLLINS Single Ride $ 1.55 $ 0.30 Seniors (60+) $ 0.76 $ 0.16 Disabled & Medicare $ 0.76 $ 0.16 Youth (17 and younger) $ 0.79 $ 0.59 Day Pass $ 3.75 $ 0.75 Transfers N/A N/A 10 Ride Booklet $ 20.00 $ 10.00 Monthly Pass $ 51.40 $ 26.40 Annual Senior $ 161.50 $ 136.50 Annual Disabled & Medicare $ 161.50 $ 136.50 Adult Annual $ 524.50 $ 370.50 Paratransit $ 2.80 $ 0.30 Fare data taken directly fom Peer Group websites - 1/9/2012 TRANSFORT PEER REVIEW (COLORADO) ATTACHMENT 3 15 Peer Peer Review Review • Fort Collins currently charges less than the average of its peer transit agencies in all categories • The most severe variance occurs in: – Monthly pass: $26.40 difference – Youth: $0.59 per fare difference – Adult Annual: $370.50 or 70% difference • Senior, Disabled and Adult annual pass types not widely instituted elsewhere as in Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 3 16 Fort Fort Collins Collins Elasticity Elasticity • Dual-tiered Approach to Elasticity – Single ride Fares: 3% Elasticity Value – Passes: 1.5% Elasticity Value • Passes are less elastic than single fares • Supported by history of fare changes and peer review ATTACHMENT 3 17 Three Three Fare Fare Structure Structure Alternatives Alternatives 1. 20% Increase in Fares and Funding Agreements 2. 20% Decrease in Fares and Funding Agreements 3. Hybrid Option – Increasing Fare Categories that are not attaining 20% Revenue Recovery – CSU Semester (15%) – Monthly Pass (17%) – Annual Senior Pass (5%) – Annual Disabled Pass (3%) – Passfort (10%) – Bohemian Foundation Grant (Youth) (9%) ATTACHMENT 3 18 Alternative Alternative 1: 1: 20% 20% Increase Increase in in Fares Fares Fare Type New Fare Ridership Change Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.50 -7,373 $ 19,662 Senior Single Ride $ 0.75 -460 $ 805 Disabled Single Ride $ 0.75 -121 $ 212 CSU Semester $ 30.00 -245 $ 476 10 Ride Booklet $ 11.00 -863 $ 3,398 Monthly Pass $ 30.00 -4,908 $ 10,494 Annual Senior $ 30.00 -2,330 $ 1,566 Annual Disabled $ 30.00 -7,534 $ 2,915 Adult Annual $ 185.00 -857 $ 2,596 Passfort $ 60.00 -5,804 $ 7,560 Day Pass $ 3.75 -65 $ 297 ASCSU Agreement $ 643,200 No Change $ 107,200 Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 72,000 No Change $ 12,000 Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -30,561 $ 169,180 ATTACHMENT 3 19 Alternative Alternative 2: 2: 20% 20% Decrease Decrease in in Fares Fares Fare Type New Fare Ridership Change Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.00 7,373 $ (23,349) Senior Single Ride $ 0.50 460 $ (536) Disabled Single Ride $ 0.50 121 $ (141) CSU Semester $ 20.00 245 $ (136) 10 Ride Booklet $ 7.00 863 $ (5,148) Monthly Pass $ 20.00 4,908 $ (16,358) Annual Senior $ 20.00 2,330 $ (647) Annual Disabled $ 20.00 7,534 $ (2,093) Adult Annual $ 125.00 857 $ (1,367) Passfort $ 40.00 5,804 $ (3,225) Day Pass $ 2.50 65 $ (232) ASCSU Agreement $ 428,800 No Change $ (107,200) Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 48,000 No Change $ (12,000) Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements 30,561 $ (172,433) ATTACHMENT 3 20 Alternative Alternative 3: 3: 20% 20% Increase Increase to to select select categories categories Fare Type New Fare Ridership Change Addition or (Decrease) in Revenue Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ - Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ - Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ - CSU Semester $ 30.00 -245 $ 127 10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ - Monthly Pass $ 30.00 -4,908 $ 15,243 Annual Senior $ 30.00 -2,330 $ 603 Annual Disabled $ 30.00 -7,534 $ 1,950 Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ - Passfort $ 75.00 -5,804 $ 8,337 Day Pass $ 3.00 $ - ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 No Change $ - Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 72,000 No Change $ 12,000 Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -20,821 $ 38,260 ATTACHMENT 3 21 Elasticity Elasticity Analysis Analysis of of Alternatives Alternatives Revenue 18.2% 21.5% 14.9% 18.9% Recovery Change from 0 $169,180 -$172,433 $38,260 Current Total $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166 Revenue Change from 0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821 Current Total 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316 Ridership 20% Hybrid Decrease 20% Increase Current Structure Scenarios: ATTACHMENT 3 22 Introductory Introductory Fare Fare Free Free Period Period for for MAX MAX What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free period to introduce the new MAX service that is planned to begin May 2014? • Alternatives evaluated include: – Seven-month fare free period – Three-month fare free period ATTACHMENT 3 23 Rational Rational for for MAX MAX Fare Fare Free Free Period Period • Common practice amongst transit agencies when introducing new service • Helps build and increase base ridership • Helps to introduce new transit riders to service without fear of fare procedures ATTACHMENT 3 24 Introductory Introductory Fare Fare Free Free Period Period For For MAX MAX *Note: Only includes Single Ride Fares 47% 0 22% Revenue Recovery - - $79,108 - $38,094 Variance from Full Fare Payment $79,108 - $41,014 Total MAX - Revenue - + 13,365 + 5,346 Variance from Full Fare Payment 53,457 66,822 58,803 Total MAX - Ridership May – July Fare Free May – Dec. MAX w/ Fare Fare Free ATTACHMENT 3 25 Transportation Transportation Board Board Recommendations Recommendations 1. No Fare Structure Change at this Time • Recommend reevaluation when MAX comes on- line 2. Free Introductory Period for MAX • Prefers less than the planned 7 month period ATTACHMENT 3 26 Action Action Requested Requested 1. Transfort Fare Structure has not been amended since 2004. Based on targeted recovery rates and elasticity evaluations, does Council support amending the current Fare Structure? 2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free period to introduce the new MAX service that is planned to begin May 2014? ATTACHMENT 3 DATE: May 8, 2012 STAFF: Donnie Dustin Kevin Gertig Brian Janonis WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION 2012 Water Supply Outlook EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to very low mountain snowpack this year, runoff from the Poudre River is expected to be well below average and will reduce the amount of water available to the City from its Poudre River water supplies. However, allocations from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project have been set high giving the City more than adequate supplies from Horsetooth Reservoir. The City does not own or control Horsetooth Reservoir and has a limited ability to hold water in that reservoir for subsequent years. In addition, the City owns very little other storage that can hold conserved water. The Water Utility is already prepared to maintain these reserves for next year’s use, while also meeting higher than average demands. Since water savings will not improve the City’s water supplies for next year, mandatory restrictions are not required. Water savings could provide additional water to local irrigators, but would result in lower revenues and the potential for rate increases. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff will address any questions regarding the City’s water supplies and demands. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Utilities’ Water Resources Division manages the City’s water supplies to help provide reliable water services to its customers. The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Resolution 2003- 104) states that, “the reliability of the Fort Collins water supply should be maintained to meet at least the 1-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River Basin”. As a result, the City has acquired a water supply system that can provide adequate supplies in most years. The Division constantly monitors the City’s water supply system by following snowpack conditions, reservoir levels and water demands. If water supplies are anticipated to be less than projected demands, the City can use the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (Ordinance No. 048, 2003) to impose restrictions to obtain necessary demand reductions. Due to very dry and warm conditions in March and April, snowpack in the Poudre Basin is 23 percent of average according to the May 1, 2012 Colorado Division of Water Resources snow course survey. These compare with 30 percent of average for May 1, 2002, which coincided with the lowest May 8, 2012 Page 2 runoff year in recorded history for the Poudre River. Although these snowpack conditions are concerning, the City is very fortunate to have several senior direct flow rights on the Poudre River that provide a stable source of water for the City’s use regardless of runoff conditions. However, the low runoff conditions will significantly reduce the amount of water available to the City from some of its other Poudre River water rights. Given these factors, the City is anticipating the yield of its Poudre River water supplies to be similar to 2002 levels. The City is most concerned about having enough water from its Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir system to meet its obligation to the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) as part of the Reuse Plan, which benefits the City with around 2,000 acre-feet of additional supplies. The City may not have adequate supplies to meet the Reuse Plan in 2012. If drought conditions continue next winter, the City will have increased difficulties meeting its obligations in 2013. For this reason, the City is working with PRPA to reduce its obligation this year and possibly in 2013. As a result of the last few years of abundant snowpack, levels in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) reservoirs are above average. Given the dry conditions, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Board of Directors allocated a 90 percent quota to CBT unit owners at its April 13, 2012 meeting. Although the City of Fort Collins requested a lower quota in order to maintain CBT system reservoir levels, the larger quota results in the City’s total supplies being more than its anticipated dry-year demands. The City currently has little storage capacity it can use to hold water that is saved through conservation and/or restrictions. The City does not own or control Horsetooth Reservoir and has a limited ability to hold water in that reservoir for subsequent years. The NCWCD has an Annual Carryover Program (ACP) that allows the City to hold water in Horsetooth, but only for its unused CBT water and only for use in the following year. The City can reserve up to 3,771 acre-feet from one year to the next in Horsetooth Reservoir through the ACP and its ownership of CBT units. The only storage owned and controlled by the City is Joe Wright Reservoir, which has an active capacity of approximately 6,500 acre-feet. However, Joe Wright is mostly used for the Reuse Plan and has a limited ability to hold water in reserve from one year to the next. The Water Utility is already prepared to maintain these reserves for next year’s use, while also being able to meet potentially higher (dry-year) demands. As always, the City advocates the wise use of our water resources. Water Utility customers have demonstrated an excellent conservation ethic by reducing their total per capita water use by around 25 percent over the last decade. Utilities will continue to provide education and resources to its customers that help them reduce their water use. Given our customer’s strong conservation ethic and the fact that water savings will not improve the City’s water supplies for next year, mandatory restrictions are not required. The Water Resources Division will continue to the monitor the City’s water supplies and demands and make adjustments as necessary. Although restrictions are not required, water savings might allow the Water Utility to rent additional supplies to local irrigation users. The City would not be able to provide additional rentals until savings are achieved, which would likely be in late summer. The additional rental revenue would be much less than the potential loss of water sale revenues. These revenues have been low in the past few years due to wet conditions and continued low revenues will likely result in the need for water rate increases. May 8, 2012 Page 3 Unlike other water providers such as Denver Water and Colorado Springs Utilities, which have around 0.50 acre-feet of storage per capita that they own and control, Fort Collins only owns and controls about 0.05 acre-feet of storage per capita. Although the City has associated storage through the CBT project, it has little control over how that storage is allocated and cannot store its Poudre River supplies in Horsetooth Reservoir. The City has been pursuing the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir to provide additional storage capacity that will not only help meet projected demands by being able to manage and utilize junior water rights it has been acquiring for many years, but will also provide a place to store some of what is conserved in years like this. A presentation on water storage to the City’s Futures Committee is planned in the near future. In addition, staff will discuss an update to the City’s Water Supply and Demand Management Policy during a City Council work session in late August 2012.