HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 03/18/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
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
Wanda Nelson, 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.
ADJOURNED MEETING
Monday, March 18, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Items Relating to Woodward, Inc.
This item is being postponed at the direction of the City Manager.
4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two
Non-Exclusive Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement on City-
Owned Property. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Daylan Figgs, Helen Matson; 5 minute staff presentation;
10 minute discussion)
The proposed Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus (“Woodward”) will be a master-planned campus
providing the ability to retain and grow primary jobs for the community. The campus will
accommodate Woodward’s continued growth of its current operations in Fort Collins. It also
includes adjacent commercial services that can be used by Woodward employees and the public
with close access to downtown and the Mulberry corridor. The planned campus will help to
improve the river corridor through the site including restoration of the natural river corridor
landscape, habitat, and appropriate recreation opportunities.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development, and supports the
City’s vision for this area. Fort Collins’ City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) identifies this site in its
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map and denotes the Lincoln Avenue Area as one of its
“Catalyst Project Areas”. These Areas are identified as locations in the city having potential to
showcase opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain, and
March 18, 2013
Connect. They are viewed as potential places for public/private initiatives using a triple bottom
line approach addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner.
For this development, Woodward has requested that the City grant Woodward two permanent
drainage easements for stormwater flows, one which would include construction of a buried
drainage pipe and the other for a graded swale. In addition, a temporary construction easement is
needed for grading, landscaping, and associated restoration work on City-owned property
adjacent to the Poudre River.
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water
Supply Shortage Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and
Amending the Plan. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith, Lisa Rosintoski; 10 minute staff
presentation; 30 minute discussion)
Based on the uncertainty of how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of
supply, the Poudre River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City
Council as a staff report on February 5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water
restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6 for the water restrictions to be effective on April
1, 2013.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate
adjustments for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response
Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be
increased for each Response Level. Revising rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the
intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the rates were developed in 2003.
The rates being proposed in this Ordinance attempt to maintain revenues at the 2013 budgeted
level for each possible Response Level. The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use
Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response Level 1.
Ordinance No. 048, 2003 does not allow the use of water fountains for public display for any of the
Response Levels. In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan, the City Manager has recommended that certain facilities of the City containing water
features be excluded from the water restrictions set forth in the Plan so as to allow City
management to evaluate their operation and use on a case-by-case basis in response to water
shortage conditions.
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to
Development in the Poudre River Floodplain. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley, Marsha Hilmes-
Robinson, Brian Varrella; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
The final component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation
protecting life and property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. Staff is recommending
that Council adopt revisions to the City Code that will establish a “performance-based” criteria and
regulation that places more emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation.
The proposed Code language requires the development of a site-specific Emergency Response
Preparedness Plan (ERPP) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy,
redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. The ERPP
requires that procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance of
when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. The
Code language requires that the ERPP be reviewed and updated annually if there are substantive
changes to elements of the plan. In order to facilitate the implementation of this new Code
language, staff has developed the following documents:
1. A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to
guide the preparation of site-specific ERPP’s
2. A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
March 18, 2013
The Working Committee and North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) support the new
approach and recommend that the proposed revisions to the Poudre River floodplain regulations
be presented to City Council for adoption. The Water Board recommended approval of the
proposed revisions as an enhancement to the existing regulations, but encouraged Council
consider prohibiting any new structures (i.e., development, redevelopment, etc.) in the 100-Year
Floodplain.
Staff recommends that an effective date of July 1, 2013 be established so that advance notice can
be provided to property owners and applicants for development submittals.
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2013, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Establish a
Disposable Bag Fee. (staff: Susie Gordon; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
At its November 27, 2012 work session, Council requested staff draft an ordinance that would
apply a fee on single-use grocery shopping bags. An ordinance is proposed that establishes a 10-
cent fee on both plastic bags and paper sacks that are used in the community’s grocery (food)
stores.
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting
and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry, Bruce Hendee
Josh Birks, Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Woodward, Inc.
This item has been postponed at the direction of the City Manager
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Daylan Figgs,
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two Non-Exclusive
Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement on City-Owned Property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus (“Woodward”) will be a master-planned campus providing the ability
to retain and grow primary jobs for the community. The campus will accommodate Woodward’s continued growth of
its current operations in Fort Collins. It also includes adjacent commercial services that can be used by Woodward
employees and the public with close access to downtown and the Mulberry corridor. The planned campus will help
to improve the river corridor through the site including restoration of the natural river corridor landscape, habitat, and
appropriate recreation opportunities.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development, and supports the City’s vision for this area.
Fort Collins’ City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) identifies this site in its Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map and
denotes the Lincoln Avenue Area as one of its “Catalyst Project Areas”. These Areas are identified as locations in the
city having potential to showcase opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain,
and Connect. They are viewed as potential places for public/private initiatives using a triple bottom line approach
addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner.
For this development, Woodward has requested that the City grant Woodward two permanent drainage easements
for stormwater flows, one which would include construction of a buried drainage pipe and the other for a graded swale.
In addition, a temporary construction easement is needed for grading, landscaping, and associated restoration work
on City-owned property adjacent to the Poudre River.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
River Restoration Plan
The Link-n-Greens PDP site has been developed and used as a golf course since 1986, and is generally characterized
by irrigated turf, man-made lined ponds and trees planted in patterns that line the golf holes. The Cache la Poudre
River is the southerly boundary and the majority of the westerly boundary of the property and the Poudre River trail
is located on the property within an easement.
City staff and the project development team have consulted extensively on habitat restoration of the buffer zone, the
area between the river and office/industrial/commercial development in the project area. Natural Areas staff desires
to use the buffer zone to achieve more natural topographic and river flow conditions within the buffer zone and to
create and expand native wetlands, cottonwood woodlands, and upland shrublands and grasslands within the buffer
zone and the extended riparian restoration area. Project and City planning staff used evaluations of historic aerial
photos, river morphology, and existing topography to guide their development of a native riparian restoration plan for
the proposed buffer zone in the project area. A detailed plan of the resulting restoration (the “River Restoration
Landscape Regimes”) is attached. This plan would include allowing the Poudre River to overflow its banks during high
flow periods into a designed overflow channel that would assist in creating adjacent wetlands and areas of upland
floodplain forest. Early modeling is showing that the floodplain in the downstream Springer and Williams Natural Areas
will be increased by 0.01 feet. The improvements to the floodplain to the northwest benefit the City and the increased
floodplain in the natural areas improve wetlands and upland floodplain forest. A floodplain easement on Springer and
Williams Natural Areas will not be required by the City. Instead the City is proposing to issue a Liability Waiver to
Woodward, Inc. for their Letter of Map Revision (“LOMR”).
The north river bank is partially located on the Link-N-Greens property, but also meanders onto adjacent City-owned
parcels. In order to accomplish a more holistic landscape restoration effort, efforts would extend beyond the Link-N-
Greens property line to allow improvement along the river bank areas regardless of property boundaries. Therefore,
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 4
several temporary easement locations have been identified on City property that will allow for grading, landscaping,
and temporary construction access required to complete this work.
The site contains several hundred trees. Many of the trees were “development” trees planted with the golf course.
Many of these trees are ornamental, non-native species and are planted in patterns that define the golf course holes
and tees. Other trees are “pre-development” trees, mostly associated with the river edge, areas near the Coy/Hoffman
Barn, and near the northeast corner of the property. All trees have been assessed for health, species and condition.
Most of the trees associated with the previous golf course development will be removed to accommodate the new
development pattern. Significant pre-development trees within the river buffer area, the northeast corner of the
property, and those associated with Coy/Hoffman Barn will be retained where possible. However, as development
and river restoration occurs it will be necessary to remove manysignificant trees. Reasons for tree removal include:
• Poor health, as determined by the City Forester;
• Hazardous conditions;
• Regrading within the Poudre River buffer zone which will: (1) allow the river to overflow its banks during high
flow periods into a designed overflow channel that would assist in creating adjacent wetlands and areas of
upland floodplain forest; (2) achieve more natural topographic and river flow conditions within the buffer zone
and to create and expand native wetlands, floodplain cottonwood woodlands, and upland shrublands and
grasslands within the buffer zone and the extended riparian restoration area; and (3) Incorporate bank
stabilization measures in areas identified by the City.
These habitat restoration efforts would also enhance the ecological character and function of the river corridor, as well
as enhance the natural ecological character of the site. In addition, planned habitat restoration efforts willenhance the
existing wildlife movement corridor along the river. The habitat restoration and enhancement plans for the buffer area
will meet the buffer area performance standards specified in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Affected City Properties
The City owns several properties adjacent to the Poudre River. The attached Easement Location Map shows the City
properties and the areas where the temporary construction easement is requested. The City parcels are as follows:
• Parcel A: Udall Natural Area – the City acquired this site in 1994 with funds from Stormwater and Natural
Resources for stormwater purposes and for a natural area.
• Parcel B: Old Pickle Plant Site, 500 Riverside Avenue – the City acquired this site in 1995 in part as buffer
for Wastewater Treatment Plant #1 and Wastewater provided funds for the purchase.
• Parcel C: Wastewater Treatment Plant, 920 East Mulberry Street: Site was purchased by the Water Utility.
• Parcel D: City property – this site was acquired by the City in 1990 at the same time as the Springer Natural
Area at Lemay and Mulberry. When this property was acquired, the uses included natural areas and a buffer
for the Waste Water Plant #1.
• Parcel E: Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”): This property is owned by CDOT and the City
has an easement over a portion of the property for the Poudre Trail. Staff is working to obtain this parcel from
CDOT for the City.
Easements Requested by Woodward
Drainage Easements
Woodward is requesting two permanent drainage easements both located in Parcel D.
1. One permanent drainage easement located near Mulberry Street would be for the storm water flows from
Woodward’s property and a portion of storm water drainage from Lemay Avenue. It is Woodward’s intention
to construct a pipe for these flows. The easement area is 30 feet x 100 feet and totals approximately 3,000
square feet. At this point in their design, the easement is planned to be in the location as shown on the
Easement Location Map. The approximate width, length and total area of this easement is not expected to
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 4
change during final design; however, the exact location of the easement request may shift a few degrees or
feet, which may slightly change the total square footage of the easement.
2. The second permanent drainage easement is also located in Parcel D adjacent to the boundary of Parcel E
and the Woodward’s property. This easement is for concentrated water flows from the water quality pond for
the Woodward development. The water will pass through a low flow public trail crossing structure and then
will flow through an open channel on the City’s property. This easement area is 60 feet x 120 feet and totals
approximately 7,200 square feet. Again, at this point in their design, this easement is planned to be as shown
on the attached Easement Location Map. As with the other drainage easement, the width, length and total
area of this easement is not expected to change during final design; however, the exact location of the
easement request may shift a few degrees or feet, which may slightly change the total square footage of the
easement.
Any necessary adjustments to the legal descriptions of either easement will be made prior to the signing of the Deed
of Easement.
Temporary Construction Easement
To complete the restoration work described above, Woodward needs a temporary construction easement (“TCE”) in
Parcels A, B, C, D and E. Woodward will be grading and restoring the areas shown on the Easement Location Map
and removing concrete from the River.
City staff is working with CDOT to obtain Parcel E. It is anticipated that this conveyance will be completed by April
2013. Staff is requesting that Council authorize the City to grant the TCE on this parcel to Woodward, Inc. after the
City acquires the parcel. Because the Temporary Construction Easement is partially on Parcel E, it would not be
signed until the City has received and recorded a Deed for Parcel E from CDOT.
Woodward will be responsible for restoration of all affected areas. The restoration will be detailed in the Easement
Agreement.
The two permanent drainage easements and the temporary construction easement will not become effective until
Woodward, Inc. completes their purchase of the Link-n-Greens property.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
All areas affected are valued at $5,000/acre. Staff has established a value of $900 for the two permanent easements
and a value of $3,590 for the temporary easement for the restoration work. It is staff’s recommendation that we do
not charge Woodward for these easements because the benefit the City is receiving of the enhanced riverbank due
to this restoration exceeds the value of the easements. Ecosystem impact fees for the work within Natural Areas have
been estimated at $4,588 and will be further refined at the completion of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff from Utilities and Natural Areas have reviewed
the request and have not identified any concerns.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its January 17, 2013 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the easements.
At its February 13, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the two non-exclusive permanent drainage easements and the temporary construction easement.
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Easement Location Map
3. River Restoration Landscape Regimes
a. Example of Cottonwood/Shrubland (Udall Natural Area)
b. Example of Wetland and Upland (Springer Natural Area)
4. Water Board minutes, January 17, 2013
5. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, February 13, 2013
6. Powerpoint presentation
TEMPORARY EASEMENT*
PERMANENT EASEMENT*
*Approximate
Springer Natural Area
LAST UPDATED: 2-20-2013
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, January 17, 2013
Approval of Two Non-Exclusive Drainage Easements with Associated Temporary
Construction Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement for River Restoration
Work on City-Owned Property Adjacent to the Poudre River *
* Please note this title has changed since the agenda was posted on January 11, 2013.
(Attachments available upon request).
Vice Chairperson Malers introduced the item and introduced Real Estate Services Manager
Helen Matson. The original request was for one permanent drainage easement and a temporary
construction easement. Additionally, Woodward will require a permanent drainage easement for
an outflow channel from the water quality pond to the Poudre River.
Ms. Matson presented the easement location map and details for a permanent drainage easement
for stormwater flows, a permanent drainage easement for the outfall channel from the water
quality pond, and a temporary construction easement in four locations. She identified the parcels
that Utilities has ownership in. The exact locations and dimensions of the permanent easements
will be determined with the final site design.
Angela Milewski, Principal Landscape Architect with BHA Design, Inc., presented more details
about the need for the easements as they relate to stormwater and water quality.
Vice Chairperson Malers explained the concept of easements to the new board members. An
easement is a request for permission to disturb City property or construct a permanent structure
on City property.
Ms. Matson stated that river restoration is a part of the Woodward project. The value to the City
of the enhanced river bank exceeds the land value for the easements. Staff recommends no
charge for these easements.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked about maintenance of the area. Ms. Milewski stated this is still
being discussed. BHA Design, Inc. is working with Natural Areas on the development.
The areas are designed to be natural systems with low maintenance landscaping.
A board member asked if the easement can be granted on the condition that Natural
Areas approves the plans. Ms. Matson stated the item will be presented to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board in February for their recommendation. Deputy City
Attorney Carrie Daggett stated Council has to approve the easement by ordinance.
A board member asked for a definition of “non-exclusive.” Ms. Matson stated this means
it can be used by others, not only Woodward.
Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council
consider approval of Two Non-Exclusive Drainage Easements with Associated
Temporary Construction Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement for River
Restoration to Woodward, Inc. Board Member Garner seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 1 of 3
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Woodward Drainage Easements and River Buffer Restoration, Udall Natural Area
(Recommendation to Council)
Daylan Figgs: Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus Project. The Woodward Project is on the old
Link-N-Greens Golf Course on the corner of Lemay and Lincoln and Lemay and Mulberry. The
map shows the boundary and the surrounding properties including Udall Natural Area, the Pickle
Plant, the Waste Water Treatment Plant, part of Springer Natural Area, and the CDOT property.
The goal of the project is to coordinate a comprehensive river restoration with development of
the Woodward Governor Campus. For this to make sense there needs to be an extension of the
restoration ignoring the property boundaries and using the river as a guide. As part of the
development Woodward is requesting two permanent stormwater drainage easements on
Springer Natural Area and temporary construction easements on the following properties Udall
Natural Area, the Pickle Plant Property, the City Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
Springer Natural Area.
K-Lynn Cameron: Why does CDOT own that property?
Daylan Figgs: I don’t know but the idea is that they will convey it to the City and the City will
convey it to Natural Areas.
Trudy Haines: Is that for sure? (Daylan: I think it is pretty certain)
Helen Matson: We are going through the process right now.
Daylan Figgs: We are asking the Board to recommend approval of an easement across the
CDOT property once we receive ownership. The two permanent easements on Springer NA deal
with stormwater leaving the Woodward site – one will be for a buried pipeline and the other will
be for an open channel. We want to focus on the easements but we also want to share what the
overall restoration will look like.
Linda Stanley: Who is paying for all of the restoration?
John Stokes: We haven’t figured it out yet. There will probably be some cross sharing.
Trudy Haines: Is there rough estimate of how much it will cost?
John Stokes: We have a really rough estimate but I’m hesitant because it is a fluid process. This
is a big project and big opportunity for Natural Areas.
Angie Milewski (bha): Want to provide some background on the project and give an overall
update. We’ve been designing project for quite a while, we had an overall development plan
approved in September; neighborhood meetings in August, November, & January; presented to
the Landmark Preservation Commission & the Water Board, and we will go to the Planning and
Zoning Board in the future. [Showed slides to illustrate the project]. The project is really close to
downtown and surrounded by diverse land uses. The aerial shows that it is an open site but not
natural site. Early in the process we met with Parks Staff, Lindsay Ex, NA staff, and consultants
to assess the opportunity and take a comprehensive approach to do some special work along the
river. [Showed a schematic of the Woodward Campus Master Plan]. The Land Use Code has a
general buffer zone standard of 300’ from top of bank but the code also specifies that the buffer
zone can be reduced or enhanced. This allowed us the opportunity to think about the project
comprehensively and not just plan based on an invisible line. We set river restoration goals
including reconnect the river to its floodway, restore the natural characteristics of the site, be
consistent with the NA Management Plan, and enhance the views of historic farm sites.
Highlighting the restoration area – concepts are based on the geometry of the river, on the west
Page 2 of 3
end we are mimicking what is happening at Udall, we are going to drop the grade and create
pockets closer to ground water creating wetland willow conditions, create upland areas, work to
reestablish a cottonwood riparian forest, and a key feature is connecting to the area to Udall and
Springer Natural Areas.
Linda Knowlton: Where is the trail going to be located?
Angie Milewski: Today’s trail hugs the river; we are going to relocate the trail away from the
river and included defined access point to the river. [Showed buffer throughout project area], in
some cases we are closer to the river than the 300ft buffer but in other places we are extending
the buffer further than 300ft.
Trudy Haines: What is the minimum and maximum buffer distance?
Angie Milewski: In no location are we closer than 210 feet and we are greater than 400 feet in
some areas. The restoration requires easements to make it happen successfully and
comprehensively.
Trudy Haines: I appreciate the work, partnership, and opportunity to restore this area. Will the
land inside the red line still be owned by Woodward? (Angie – Correct) How do we know that
50 years from now Woodward will have the same sensitivity? How will we know if it is owned
privately?
Angie Milewski: In our Development Plan we have to show the grading and planting and any
change over time would require a change to the Development Plan.
K-Lynn Cameron: So any change would have to come back to the City. (Angie – yes)
Linda Stanley: In Situ’s, restoration was awful, it didn’t grow and it was close to the river. It
may be better now but nothing was done at the time to make it better.
John Stokes: We have talked to Woodward about the eventual disposition of the property and
Woodward has some interest in potentially conveying it to the City but that has not been
finalized.
Linda Stanley: Will NA be in charge of the restoration, even though most of it is Woodward
Property?
John Stokes: No, it is Woodward’s project, they have to figure out how to get it built, but we are
helping design it and helping develop the plans, there might be some level of collaboration on
installation of material.
Linda Stanley: It could be an in-kind donation.
John Stokes: We haven’t gotten that far yet, we’re still working to develop the right plan.
Linda Knowlton: My fear would be that Woodward’s primary interest is to get their fill dirt out
and that the restoration is the last thing on their agenda.
Mark Sears: In talking with Woodward representatives, if you look at the orientation of office
building, I don’t think they would want to leave the site disturbed.
John Stokes: We want to get plants in the ground as soon as possible to hold soil, haven’t
figured out the sequence but we want to get things in the ground.
Wayne Timura: The site is complex but there are a lot of opportunities for creative design and
creative work. Woodward would like to have the partnership continue and they are exploring
opportunity to have a transfer take place at some point but the details are very complex.
Trudy Haines: From a PR standpoint, this is a very popular trail, when it does get torn up there
will be consternation in the community. If there is a plan to convey the land to NA I would do it
at that time, I think it would help with the PR piece; it could be seen as a gift back to the people
of Fort Collins. Consider that timing to ease the frustration.
K-Lynn Cameron: Will the trail be closed or re-routed?
Mark Sears: I imagine the trail will be closed during construction.
Kent Leier: Any idea how long it will take?
Wayne Timura: Not at this point.
Page 3 of 3
Ed Reifsnyder: What are the regulatory issues around what Woodward has to do?
John Stokes: There are flood plain and flood way issues and there is the 300’ regulatory buffer.
It is a performance standard not a set-in-stone 300’ buffer, trying to achieve a highly performing
attribute instead of sticking to the line.
Ed Reifsnyder: Within the varying 300’ guideline are they required to do restoration work?
John Stokes: They are required to do some work; this is really the Ferrari version.
Angie Milewski: On smaller sites plants are put in to create a wall, the idea here is to keep it a
public space while enhancing the campus.
K-Lynn Cameron: Because the ground is being lowered, how does the Corps of engineers fit
into the project?
John Stokes: Because we are lowering the elevation the permitting process is a lot easier.
Wayne Timura: All of the buildings will be at or above the 500 year flood plain. There are also
no plans to fence the perimeter. The idea is to create spurs off the Poudre River Trail to the
campus and to the historic sites.
Trudy Haines: This is a win for the employee too.
Linda Knowlton moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends
that City Council approve two permanent drainage easements on Springer Natural Area
and temporary construction easements on Udall Natural Area, the Pickle Plant property,
and the City Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant property.
&
That the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council
approve a temporary easement on the Colorado Department of Transportation property
once the property is conveyed to the Natural Areas Department.
Kent Leier seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Linda Stanley: I hope you will drive a hard bargain, I know there are negotiations going on
about who is going to pay. I hope that Natural Areas has to put in very little money.
Trudy Haines: Do you know what tax incentive request is?
John Stokes: I don’t know what the package looks like, Bruce Hendee is the staff liaison, some
portion of the increment will come back to the restoration plan but I don’t know the number. We
are still having the conversation. I do think there will be some expected contribution from NAs,
the argument in favor is we have influenced the design of the project substantially. We will
come back to the Board to discuss it and any contribution will come out of the green money pot.
Linda Stanley: I see a lot of good things coming from this, to me there is a price to pay to locate
a company in a high quality community like Fort Collins.
K-Lynn Cameron: I know there are lots of decisions to be made but I’m excited about the
project’s potential.
Trudy Haines: I request that this gets relayed to Woodward. I trust the company and think they
are a company of high integrity; my request is that Woodward gives something back to the
community that is tangible and real, either in a donation for an open space or paying for the
restoration. Either one of those things will go a long way in terms of public perception. I am
supportive, I do know that there is a big request for a financial incentive, I’m hoping that it can
come back to the community in a big way, the last I heard it was a $27 million dollar request, a
big chunk of our tax dollars.
Vote: Motion unanimously approved
1
First Reading of Ordinance No.
044, 2013, Authorizing the
Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of
Two Non-Exclusive Permanent
Drainage Easements and a
Temporary Construction
Easement on City-Owned
Property
March 18, 2013
ATTACHMENT 6
2
Woodward Easements
Woodward is developing the Woodward Link-N-
Greens Campus and has requested the following
easements from the City.
City properties affected: Udall Natural Area, Old
Pickle Plant site, Wastewater Plant #1, Springer
Natural Area
3
Woodward Easements
Two Permanent Drainage Easements
An easement to carry the Development’s
stormwater to the Poudre River in a buried
pipeline across City property.
An easement for a graded swale on City property
that will carry water flows from the Development’s
water quality pond to the Poudre River.
4
Woodward Easements
Temporary Construction Easement for River
Restoration Work in five locations shown on the
Easement Location Map.
5
5
6
Compensations for Easements
Ecosystem impact fees are estimated at $4,588
to be paid by Woodward at project completion.
Easement value for the two drainage easements
is $900.
Temporary construction easement value is
$3,590.
Due to River Restoration work, staff does not
recommend charging Woodward for these
easements.
ORDINANCE NO. 044, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE TO WOODWARD, INC.
OF TWO NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City owns four parcels of land in the area between Lemay Avenue, Mulberry
Street, Riverside Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, known as: Udall Natural Area (“Parcel A”), 500
Riverside Avenue (“Parcel B”), 920 East Mulberry Street (“Parcel C”), and a portion of the Springer
Natural Area (“Parcel D”); and
WHEREAS, Parcel A is used for stormwater purposes and as a natural area; Parcel B was
purchased as a buffer for Wastewater Treatment Plant #1; Parcel C is the location of Wastewater
Treatment Plant #1; and Parcel D is used as a natural area and as a buffer for Wastewater Treatment
Plant #1; and
WHEREAS, the City is also working to acquire for natural areas purposes another parcel of
land in the same area, currently owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”),
which is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Parcel E”); and
WHEREAS, Parcels A-E are collectively referred to herein as the “City Property”; and
WHEREAS, Woodward, Inc. (“Woodward”) is in the process of developing a new master-
planned campus that would house its manufacturing operations and corporate headquarters, as well
as commercial services (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be built on the site of the former Link-N-Greens golf
course, adjacent to the City Property; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Woodward is requesting a permanent, non-exclusive
drainage easement approximately 3,000 square feet in size, to carry storm water flows from the
Project property, and a portion of storm water drainage from Lemay Avenue, in a pipe across the
City Property to the Poudre River (the “Pipeline Easement”); and
WHEREAS, Woodward is also requesting a permanent, non-exclusive drainage easement
approximately 7,200 square feet in size, to carry concentrated water flows from its proposed water
quality pond across the City Property to the Poudre River (the “Concentrated Water Flow
Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the locations of the proposed Pipeline Easement and the Concentrated Water
Flow Easement are shown and described on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by
reference (the “Easement Areas”); and
WHEREAS, the exact location of one or both of the permanent easements may have to shift
slightly during final design of the Project; however, the width, length and total square footage of the
Easement Areas is not expected to change significantly, and final legal descriptions of the Easement
Areas would be confirmed before the permanent easements are granted; and
WHEREAS, Woodward has also requested a Temporary Construction Easement on the City
Property, approximately 3.59 acres in size, to complete river restoration work, including grading and
landscaping, as part of the Project (the “Temporary Construction Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the location of the proposed Temporary Construction Easement is shown and
described on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the two permanent easements and the Temporary Construction Easement are
collectively referred to herein as the “Easements”; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed Easements and
does not believe that any of them would interfere with the intended uses of the City Property, either
as part of the City’s utility systems, or as natural areas; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the two permanent easements have a value of
$900 and the Temporary Construction Easement is valued at $3,590; however, staff is
recommending that the City not charge Woodward for the Easements because the benefit the City
would receive from Woodward’s planned river restoration would exceed the value of the Easements;
and
WHEREAS, the Easements would not be effective until Woodward purchases the Project
property, and the City would not execute the Temporary Construction Easement on Parcel E until
the City has acquired Parcel E from CDOT; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 17, 2013, the Water Board reviewed the
proposed Easements and recommended that the City Council authorize their conveyance; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on February 13, 2013, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board reviewed the proposed Easements and also recommended that the City Council
authorize their conveyance; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned by the City,
provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the
best interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, with respect to property that is part of the City’s water or utility systems,
Section 23-111(b) of the City Code requires that the City Council also find that the disposition will
not materially impair the viability of the particular utility system as a whole and that it will be for
the benefit of the citizens of the City.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easements as set forth herein is in the best interests
of the City, will not impair the viability of the stormwater system or the water system, and will be
for the benefit of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easements on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together
with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City
Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but
not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such
changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
EXHIBIT A
A tract or parcel of land containing 2.734 acres, more or less, in the SE¼
of Section 12, T.7N., R.69W., of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Larimer County,
Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the SE corner of Section 12, T.7N.,
R.69W., bears S. 53º 15’ E. a distance of 661.6 feet;
1. Thence N. 28º 10’ W. a distance of 230.0 feet;
2. Thence N. 53º 14’ W. a distance of 281.5 feet;
3. Thence N. 0º 22’ E. a distance of 239.2 feet;
4. Thence S. 59º 08’ E. a distance of 276.5 feet to a point of curve;
5. Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 998.6
feet a distance of 275.6 feet (the chord of which arc bears S. 51º 14’ E.
a distance of 274.7 feet);
6. Thence S. 21º 51’ W. a distance of 319.5 feet, more or less, to the
point of beginning.
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith
Lisa Rosintoski
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 5
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water Supply Shortage
Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and Amending the Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the uncertainty of how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of supply, the Poudre
River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City Council as a staff report on February
5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6 for the
water restrictions to be effective on April 1, 2013.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate adjustments for
Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins
Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be increased for each Response Level. Revising
rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the
rates were developed in 2003. The rates being proposed in this Ordinance attempt to maintain revenues at the 2013
budgeted level for each possible Response Level. The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge
for each Response Level beginning with Response Level 1.
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water restrictions are no
longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City
Manager has recommended two amendments be made to Ordinance No. 048, 2003. One involves changes to the
definition and use of “water fountains” (changed to “water features”) and the other involves changes to the terms of
permits for large acreage and parks and athletic/playing fields.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Going into 2013, staff is uncertain how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of supply, the
Poudre River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT). The 2012 fires in the Poudre Canyon limited the amount
of Poudre River water that was able to be treated for drinking water last year, due to poor water quality as a result of
rain events over the burn area and fluctuations in the River’s flow. In addition, persistent drought conditions continue
that impact the amount of water supply available.
For 2013, it is unknown how much be able to be drawn from the Poudre River because of the fire-related water quality
degradation. Thus, there may be the need to rely heavily on our CBT supplies from Horsetooth Reservoir. However,
the amount of CBT water that will be available will not be clear until Northern Water declares the allocation available
(or quota) to all unit owners in that project on April 12. It is anticipated that the quota may be low due to poor
snowpack conditions. As such, not knowing how much water will be available staff believes it is in the best interest
of the community’s water supply resources to implement Response Level 1 water restrictions, effective April 1, 2013.
On March 6, City Manager Darin Atteberry will declare the restrictions.
In April 2003, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2003, a Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. The Plan
is a comprehensive document that outlines a series of measures to be enacted, including four water shortage
response level water restrictions. This Plan was effective in responding to the 2003 drought efforts; therefore staff
believes the Plan supports responding to the 2013 water supply conditions. Among other measures, Response Level
1 limits lawn watering to two days per week. Response Level 2 limits watering to one day per week and the adjustment
to rates reflects a 15 percent reduction in water demand. Response Level 3 limits watering to one day per week for
2 hours that day and a 25 percent rate adjustment. No lawn watering is allowed between June 1 and August 31 for
Response Level 4 and a 35 percent rate adjustment.
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 5
In case it is necessary to immediately move to a higher Response Level, the Rate Ordinance increases the quantity
rate charges for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. It also includes an increase to the Excess Water Use Surcharge,
beginning with Response Level 1. The reason this surcharge is increased at Response Level 1 when the quantity
charges are not increased is because this surcharge reflects the use by a customer in excess of the amount of water
the City would expect to be available in a normal year from the water rights, City certificates and cash in-lieu of water
rights assigned to the customer premise.
Water Rate Changes for Water Restrictions
The following water rate increases comply with the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003.
Proposed Water Rates
Monthly water rates will not change for Response Level 1. A fourth tier has been added for single family and duplex
customers. The quantity charges will change, but not the base charges. All charges are for 1,000 gallons of water use.
Single Family
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1 0-7,000 $2.189 $2.625 $3.074 $3.633
2 7,001-13,000 $2.516 $3.150 $3.689 $4.360
3 13,001-20,000 $2.894 $3.780 $4.427 $5.232
4 >20,000 $2.894 $4.536 $5.312 $6.278
Duplex
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1 0-9,000 $2.109 $2.549 $2.991 $3.509
2 9,001-13,000 $2.424 $3.059 $3.589 $4.210
3 13,001-20,000 $2.789 $3.670 $4.307 $5.052
4 >20,000 $2.789 $4.404 $5.168 $6.063
Multi-Family – Summer Rate
2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
$2.547 $3.395 $4.212 $5.173
Commercial – Summer Rate
2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1st Step $2.201 $2.903 $3.599 $4.610
Conservation Step $3.164 $4.173 $5.174 $6.627
Proposed Excess Water Use Surcharge
The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response
Level 1. An annual water allotment is set based on the amount of raw water rights supplied for the account and is
assessed for any use that exceeds it. The surcharges are per 1,000 gallons, in addition to the base and quantity
charges. Any revenue from this surcharge is assigned to the Water Rights Reserve and not used for operational
expenses.
Below is a table of the proposed increases for this surcharge:
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 5
Excess Water Use Surcharge
2013 Rate Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
$3.060 $3.366 $4.440 $5.504 $7.050
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water restrictions are no
longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
Proposed Changes to Ordinance No. 048, 2003
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City
Manager has recommended two amendments be made to the ordinance. One refers to “water fountains” and the other
to the terms of two permits.
Redefining Water Fountains
Ordinance 048, 2003 does not allow the use of water fountains for public display for any of the Response Levels. The
ordinance defines “water fountain” as follows:
“
“Water fountain shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is
a waterfall or fountain for public display. The term water fountain shall not mean a water feature of
a pond or basin that performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or basin.”
This Ordinance changes the definition of “Water fountain” to a definition of “Water feature,” which is a more
comprehensive term. The definition has been modified to apply to both public and private water features and to
exclude water features that are part of a swimming pool. The proposed restrictions allow the use of both public and
private water features at Level 1 and 2 and prohibit them for Level 3 and 4. With this change, distinguishing between
public and private water features is no longer needed. The exclusion of water features in swimming pools is requested
because the water from these features simply lands back in the pool and very little additional water is used. If we are
under Level 3 or 4 restrictions, pools will be very popular as a refuge from hot, dry weather.
This Ordinance amends the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan to revise the definition of “water fountain” to read
as follows:
“Water feature” shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is
a waterfall or fountain. The term water feature shall not mean a water feature of a pond or basin that
performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or basin, or a water feature in a
swimming pool.
Revising Terms of Two Permits
The Water Shortage Response Plan makes available permits to allow for exceptions to assigned watering days.
Applications must be submitted and approved by Fort Collins Utilities. Adoption of this Ordinance will remove the
current restriction on irrigating parks and public athletic/playing fields Tuesday through Thursday for Level 2 and 3,
and removes the same restriction on irrigating private property of 4 acres or more for Level 2.
Irrigating is still prohibited on Monday and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The maximum amount of water that can be
applied per week remains unchanged. This modification is needed because of the amount of time it takes to irrigate
these larger properties. In addition, parks and athletic/playing fields are in use well before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. and
they can’t be watered while they are being used. Additionally, tents, displays and infrastructure for park events often
stay up overnight on weekends.
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 5
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rate increases are designed to generate the same revenue for the Water Fund as the original 2013 rate structure.
The financial impact of implementing higher water rates through the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan is
anticipated to be minimal to most residential and commercial customers who respond to the plan by using less water
for irrigation. Those customers that do not reduce their water demand as expected for a given Response Level
because of business processes or other reasons, will see an increase in the water charges on their utility bill.
The increase of the Raw Water Surcharge will also impact those customers who use more water than their annual
allotment. Fort Collins Utilities is reaching out to customers who exceeded their annual allotment in 2012 through a
letter explaining the water shortage situation and encouraging those customers to use less water and/or provide
additional water rights, City certificates or cash in-lieu of water rights to avoid this surcharge in 2013.
Implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan may have a financial impact on the Water Fund.
Attachment 1 shows the estimated revenue loss for each Response Level. The Plan calls for no rate adjustment at
Response Level 1. It is estimated that remaining at Response Level 1 throughout the summer (May through October)
will result in the loss of $850,000 in operating revenue to the Water Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Response Level water rate adjustments promote conservation to sustain the needed water supplies to support
indoor and health and safety uses. The water restrictions target lawn watering as grass is less vulnerable to limited
watering. Depending on the level of restriction, lawns may go dormant and brown lawns will be visible throughout the
community. However, landscape watering for trees, shrubs and vegetable gardens is not limited, but must use a hose
with a shut-off nozzle or low-volume, efficient irrigation. These landscape features are vulnerable to a lack of water
and expensive to replace. Trees are often watered when lawns are watered. During the 2002-2003 restrictions, many
trees were adversely affected. The City will offer landscape survival care information to citizens during the water
restrictions, with a strong emphasis on caring for trees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to support Ordinance No. 047, 2013.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has begun the following public outreach:
• Communicated in the 2012 Year-End Letter to our Customers
• Contact with agricultural CBT renters, no water available for rent
• Numerous media interviews
• Contact with Northern Water staff
A Water Supply Management Action Plan will detail key activities to provide awareness and education to the
community on the water restrictions. Activities include:
• Bill inserts and City News articles, starting in March to customers
• Dedicated restrictions website
• An icon to graphically keep public aware of water supply monitoring
• Articles in City and local newsletters, newspapers and other outlets
• Newspaper and magazine advertising
March 18, 2013 -5- ITEM 5
• Outdoor advertising on bus benches and bus shelters
• Displays at events and public locations, such as City buildings, libraries and other venues
• Speakers Bureau that will give presentations to targeted customers, and to other interested organizations
• Coordinate meetings for targeted customers, such as homeowner associations, industry groups, key utility
customer accounts, landscape contractors, restaurants and other
• Participate at events, such as Biz Ed, Residential Environmental Program, Earth Day, Chamber Green in
Action, Water Works open house, ClimateWise events and others
• Offer watershed tours for key accounts, City employees and the general public
• Continue outreach for water rebates, sprinkler system audit program and other help for saving water
Outreach key messages and information about the water restrictions, as well as enforcement procedures, will prepare
the Fort Collins community for the April 1 effective date.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, states, “Upon such determination and
declaration, the City Manager shall cause to be published in the local newspaper of record a notice of the restrictions
and requirements corresponding to the Water Supply Shortage Response Level, as set forth herein, and the effective
date of said restrictions and requirements…” The Public Notice is scheduled to be published in the Coloradoan on
March 17 and March 24, and on the Fort Collins Utilities website.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Estimated Revenue Impacts chart
2. Water Board minutes, February 21, 2013
3. Powerpoint presentation
Estim
In the
is bro
As th
each
Leve
Resp
Fund 5
Operat
Reside
Comm
Irrigati
Raw W
PILOTs
Total O
Loss W
Loss W
* Estim
mated Rev
e 2013 Budg
oken down in
he table abov
Response L
l 1. The char
onse Level w
502 ‐ Water
ting Revenue Fo
ential
mercial
ion Leases
Water Surcharges
s
Operating Reven
Without Rate Or
With Rate Ordin
mated 50% reduc
venue Loss
get, the Wate
n the followi
ve shows, rev
evel. This O
rt below sho
without the r
orecast 2013
$16
$8
s *
$1
nue $26
rdinance
ance
ction through cu
s by Restri
er Fund oper
ing table:
venue is exp
Ordinance mi
ows the estim
requested rat
3 Budget
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
1
Recommendation on 2013 Water Supply Management Action Plan/Monthly Water
Resources Report/Water Supply Outlook
Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager Jon Haukaas introduced the item and
introduced Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin. This item was presented as a Staff Report
for City Council on February 5, 2013 to describe the uncertainty of the Poudre River water
supply and the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Project. The Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan, Ordinance 048, 2003, recommends water rate adjustments for Response Levels 2, 3, and 4.
Why Water Restrictions?
Poudre River supply uncertain due to the High Park Fire effects on water quality
CBT (Horsetooth Reservoir) quota unknown until early April
Persistent extreme drought conditions
Mr. Dustin presented a Colorado SNOTEL Snowpack Update Map highlighting poor snowpack
conditions. He also presented the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook as of February 7, 2013.
Mr. Dustin presented the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan showing the differences
between Response Level 1, 2, 3, and 4. Level 1 restrictions will go into effect April 1, 2013. The
Level 1 Watering Schedule includes no lawn watering between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. and no lawn
watering on Mondays.
Response Level Rate Adjustments
Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith presented this information. Mr. Smith
presented a graph on the Revenue Loss by Response Level. There will be no rate adjustment
with Response Level 1. It will be absorbed through the reserves. Rate adjustments are allowed
with Level 2, 3, and 4 restrictions. Staff is seeking Council approval for all levels.
Mr. Smith presented the following graphs:
Single Family Rates by Response Level (a fourth tier has been added)
Duplex Rates by Response Level (a fourth tier has been added)
Multi-Family Rates by Response Level
Commercial Rates by Response Level
Excess Water Use Surcharge Rates by Response Level
Customers are given an annual allotment based on the amount of raw water supplied for the
account. The allotment may be increased through additional water rights or cash in-lieu of water
rights.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked how many customers exceeded their allotment last year. Mr.
Smith stated less than 10 percent of the commercial customers exceeded their allotment.
A board member asked how the allotment is determined. Mr. Haukaas stated this is
determined by the City Code.
A board member asked for staff to elaborate on the Drought Response Plan. Mr. Smith
stated the rates for single family, duplex, multi-family, and commercial are part of the
Drought Response Plan. The Excess Water Use Surcharge is not part of the Drought
Response Plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
2
A board member asked if there is enough education for customers to incorporate water
conservation and xeriscaping. Mr. Haukaas stated Utilities has a Water Conservation
Program. Water Conservation Specialists are available to provide water audits for
customers on their usage and suggest ways to incorporate xeriscaping and low water
plants in their yards.
Communication and Public Engagement
Customer Connections Manager Lisa Rosintoski presented this information. Key steps taken
include communicated awareness in the 2012 year-end letter to customers, interviews with the
media, no CBT water rented to agriculture, and the Water Supply Management Action Plan. The
Water Supply Management Action Plan is a comprehensive document to recognize the problem,
ways to monitor the water, how to recognize the Water Supply Response Plan, and how to
communicate this information to the community. The plan also includes violation management.
Staff will communicate restriction response levels by providing extensive customer
communication, monitoring water supply, offering water efficiency rebates, and creating an icon
to visually support awareness.
Next Actions Include the Following:
March: utility bill insert
March 5 and 19 City Council: ordinance to set rates for higher response levels
April 12: CBT quota set
April 23: City Council Work Session
Ongoing: communication and outreach to public and key stakeholders
Ms. Rosintoski presented the Water Supply Management Action Plan 2013 Timeline outlining
actions from February through May.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked if his Homeowners Association (HOA) could receive e-mails
regarding the water restriction information. Ms. Rosintoski stated staff will contact HOAs
requesting to be a part of their e-mail and newsletter distribution lists.
A board member asked if the City website has been updated with this information. Ms.
Rosintoski stated the website has been updated. The information is available at
http://www.fcgov.com/water-restrictions.
A board member asked how the use of Advanced Meters will coincide with the restriction
plan. Mr. Haukaas stated the customers should be able to monitor their real time usage by
the May/June timeframe.
A board member asked how staff will communicate the table of rate changes. Ms.
Rosintoski stated this will be communicated to customers as part of the Utility bill insert.
A board member feels it is important to distinguish between ongoing conservation and
the current drought restrictions. The board member feels water levels should be
communicated to customers.
A board member asked how Utilities will enforce the restrictions. Since the Water Supply
Management Action Plan includes an enforcement section, Utilities will hire additional
staff to monitor usage. Packets of information will be sent to customers who violate the
Attachment 2
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
3
restrictions. Utilities priority is to inform and educate customers first and foremost. Fines
are used as a last resort.
A board member asked about fines. The fines vary from $50 to $1,000. In 2002, 28
warnings and three tickets were issued. In 2003, 5 warnings were issued. No tickets were
issued in 2003.
A board member asked if there has been any data from the Advanced Meters identifying
water leaks. Mr. Haukaas stated the Meter Data Management System has identified some
leaks in certain properties. These customers have been notified of the leaks.
A board member inquired about the modeling predictions and timeline for starting Level
2 restrictions. Mr. Dustin stated this cannot be predicted yet; however, the Water Supply
Response Plan gives the City Manager the ability to initiate higher restriction levels if
necessary.
Staff proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to include wording on the Excess Water Use
Surcharge. The original ordinance from 2003 did not include the surcharge.
Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Bovee moved that the Water Board support the adoption of Ordinance
##, 2013, increasing water rates consistent with the City’s Water Supply Shortage
Response Plan, Ordinance 048, 2003, for Response Levels 2, 3, and 4. Board Member
Brown seconded the motion.
Amended Motion: Vice Chairperson Bovee moved that the Water Board support the
adoption of Ordinance ##, 2013, increasing water rates for Level 2, 3, and 4 of the City’s
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and the Excess Water Use Surcharge for all levels.
Board Member Brown seconded the motion.
Attachment 2
1
2013 Water Supply
Management Action Plan
Water Rate Adjustments and
Response Plan Amendments
City Council
March 18, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Why Water Restrictions?
Poudre River supply uncertain due to
High Park Fire effects on water quality
Persistent extreme drought conditions
Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(Horsetooth Reservoir) quota unknown
until early April
3
Poor Snowpack
Conditions
South
Platte
70%
3
4
Conditions Likely
to Continue
5
Water Supply Shortage
Response Plan
• Response Level 1
– 2 days/week watering
– No rate adjustments
• Response Level 2
– 1 day/week watering
– Adjust rates for 15% reduction
(Starting Apr. 1)
6
Water Supply Shortage
Response Plan
• Response Level 3
– 1 day/week – 2 hour limit
– Adjust rates for 25% reduction
• Response Level 4
– No watering June 1 – August 31
– Response Level 3 restrictions
September 1 – May 31
– Adjust rates for 35% reduction
7
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan:
Response Level Rate Adjustments
8
Revenue Loss by Response Level
9
Single-Family Rates by Response Level
• The rates above are per thousand gallons and are in addition to
the Base charges.
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2Level 3 Level 4
10‐7,000 $2.189 $2.625 $3.074 $3.633
27,001‐13,000 $2.516 $3.150 $3.689 $4.360
3 13,001‐20,000 $2.894 $3.780 $4.427 $5.232
4> 20,000 $2.894 $4.536 $5.312 $6.278
10
Duplex Rates by Response Level
• The rates above are per thousand gallons and are in addition to
the Base charges.
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2Level 3 Level 4
10‐9,000 $2.109 $2.549 $2.991 $3.509
29,001‐13,000 $2.424 $3.059 $3.589 $4.210
3 13,001‐20,000 $2.789 $3.670 $4.307 $5.052
4> 20,000 $2.789 $4.404 $5.168 $6.063
11
Multi-Family Rates by Response Level
• The rates above are per thousand gallons and are in addition to
the Base charges.
Multifamily 2013 Rate Level 2Level 3Level 4
Summer $2.547 $3.395 $4.212 $5.173
12
Commercial Rates by Response Level
• The rates above are per thousand gallons and are in addition
to the Base charges.
• The Conservation Step is the second tier for commercial
customers who exceed their monthly allotment. The number
of gallons at which it is applied varies by tap size.
Commercial
Summer
2013 Rate Level 2Level 3Level 4
1st step $2.201 $2.903 $3.599 $4.610
Conservation
Step $3.164 $4.173 $5.174 $6.627
13
Excess Water Use Surcharge Rates
by Response Level
• The rates above are per thousand gallons and are in addition to
the Base and Use charges.
• Based on the amount of raw water supplied for the account,
customers are given an annual allotment. The allotment may
be increased through additional water rights or cash in‐lieu of
water rights.
2013 Rate Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Excess Water
Use Surcharge
$3.060 $3.366 $4.440 $5.504 $7.050
14
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan:
Communication and Public Engagement
15
Water Supply Management Action Plan
Comprehensive Action Plan
• Water Supply Conditions
• Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
• Communication
• Public Engagement
• Water Restrictions Violation Management
16
Water Supply Management Action Plan
Public Engagement
• Speakers Bureau
• Irrigation Program
• Conservation Program
• Rebates
Communication
• Utility Bill Insert
• Collaboration with media
• Website
• Bus and Billboards
17
Next Actions
• March: utility bill insert
• March 26: second reading
of ordinance
• April 12: CBT quota set
• April 23: City Council Work
Session
• Ongoing: communication
and outreach to public and
key stakeholders
18
Water Supply Management Action Plan
2013 Time line
February
• Feb. 5 - City
Council Staff
Report
• February finalize
brochure for utility
bill delivery in
March
• Feb. 21 - Water
Board Update
• Finalize WSMAP
for Utilities
Director and City
Manager Review
March
• City Manager
declares
Response Level
1 water
restrictions
effective April 1
• Notice submitted
to newspaper per
Water Shortage
Ordinance
• Mar. 7 - Water
Board Update
• Mar. 18 - Water
Rate Ordinance –
first reading
• Mar. 26 - Water
Rate Ordinance –
second reading
• Customers receive
water restrictions
utility bill insert
April
• April 1 –
Response Level
1 water
restrictions
effective
• April 2 - City
Council elections
• April 12 -
NCWCD Quota
known to assess
potential
Response Level
change
• April 16 - City
Council Staff
Report
• April 18 – Water
Board Update
• April 23 - City
Council Work
19
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan:
Water Features and Permit Changes
20
Water Features
(Splash Parks and Fountains)
• ON: Levels 1 & 2
• OFF: Levels 3 & 4
21
Parks/Fields and Large Acreage Irrigation
• Parks and fields:
allowed Tue. through Sun.
– Level 2 and 3
• 4 acres or more:
allowed Tue. thru Sun.
– Level 2
• Allows adequate time to irrigate
• Weekends difficult (high use)
• Water use remains the same
22
Questions?
1
ORDINANCE NO. 047, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ENACTING WATER RATES ADJUSTMENTS
FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE RESPONSE LEVELS
ESTABLISHED IN THE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
AND AMENDING THE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as
will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility,
as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, requires that the City
Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year
and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance
No. 113, 2012, which amended Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to establish water
rates for the City water utility for 2013, as provided in Section 26-118; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, City staff has
determined, based on conditions in the Poudre watershed and in the City’s water supply generally,
that a water shortage condition is likely to be present in 2013; and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2003, establishing a
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan that designate water supply shortage response levels and
corresponding water restrictions and conservation measures to be implemented administratively
based on a projected water supply shortage; and
WHEREAS, by its terms, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, has remained in effect because there has
been no determination or declaration by the City Council that municipal water supply conditions no
longer justify the continued implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 048 directs the City Manager to present to the Council for
consideration a revised water rate structure to reflect revised consumption and revenue projections as
soon as reasonably practicable after a change in the Water Supply Shortage Response Level; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of the potential for possibly severe water supply shortages during
2013, and in order to establish the water rate structure associated with each corresponding Water
Supply Shortage Response Level, staff has prepared a series of rate structures, as described herein, to
be applied to City water service commensurate with the Water Supply Shortage Response Level as
provided herein; and
2
WHEREAS, in addition, because excess water use surcharges arise when a customer uses
water beyond the applicable annual allotment for the customer, this Ordinance contains an increase
to the excess water use surcharge for each Water Supply Shortage Response Level, including Level
1, to encourage customers to reduce their consumption or provide additional raw water to the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the water rates structures proposed to correspond to
levels of shortage outlined in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan at its February 21, 2013,
meeting and recommended approval of the proposed water rates structures by an unanimous vote;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
water rates be established, to be implemented as set forth herein to accompany the corresponding
Water Supply Shortage Response Level as set forth Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as amended by this
Ordinance, and as the same may be amended or replaced by further action of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan in the coming months, the City Manager has recommended that the water restrictions be revised
to modify the restriction on use of water fountains so as to allow certain activities in less severe
water shortage conditions, and exempt water features in outdoor swimming pools from the
restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has further recommended that the City Council revise the
restrictions on permits for watering of large turf areas, City parks and public playing/athletic fields to
prohibit watering at Response Levels 2 and 3 only on Monday, rather than Monday through
Thursday, so as to allow more flexibility in managing watering schedules on these properties given
that the limit on total amount of water to be applied will remain applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
1, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
apply, except that the surcharge for water used in excess of an applicable annual allotment, set forth
in Section 26-129(c)(2) shall be changed as follows:
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
. . .
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
…
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment
3
shall be three dollars and six cents ($3.06) three dollars and thirty-six and six
tenth cents ($3.366) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 2. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
2, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and eighteen and nine-tenths cents ($2.189) sixty-two and five
tenths cents ($2.625) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two
dollars and fifty-one and six-tenths cents ($2.516) three dollars and fifteen
cents ($3.150) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
three dollars and seventy-eight cents ($3.780) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
eighty-nine and four-tenths cents ($2.894) four dollars and fifty-three and
six tenths cents ($4.536) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents ($16.61).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
4
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two
dollars and ten and nine-tenths cents ($2.109) fifty-four and nine tenths cents
($2.549) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two
dollars and forty-two and four-tenths cents ($2.424) three dollars and five and
nine tenths cents ($3.059) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of three
dollars and sixty-seven cents ($3.670) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
seventy-eight and nine-tenths cents ($2.789) four dollars and forty and four
tenths cents ($4.404) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and fifty-four and seven-tenths cents ($2.547)
three dollars and thirty nine and five tenths cents ($3.395) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October.
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly
quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full
billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base
Charge
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
5
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity charge of
one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand (1,000) gallons
used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and twenty and one-tenth cents ($2.201) two dollars and ninety
and three tenths cents ($2.903) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season
months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full
billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified in the
following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. Monthly water
use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at three dollars and sixteen and
four-tenths cents ($3.164) four dollars and seventeen and three tenths cents ($4.173) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The
meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge;
however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer
excess quantity charge.
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
. . .
6
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall be
three dollars and six cents ($3.06) four dollars and forty-four cents ($4.440) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 3. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
3, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
7
of two dollars and eighteen and nine-tenths cents ($2.189) three
dollars and seven and four tenths cents ($3.074) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and fifty-one and six-tenths cents ($2.516) three dollars
and sixty-eight and nine tenths cents ($3.689) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
four dollars and forty-two and seven tenths cents ($4.427) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
eighty-nine and four-tenths cents ($2.894) five dollars and thirty-one
and two tenths cents ($5.312) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents
($16.61).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and ten and nine-tenths cents ($2.109) ninety-nine and
one tenths cents ($2.991) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and forty-two and four-tenths cents ($2.424) three
dollars fifty-eight and nine tenths cents ($3.589) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of four dollars and thirty and seven tenths cents ($4.307) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
seventy-eight and nine-tenths cents ($2.789) five dollars and sixteen
and eight tenths cents ($5.168) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
8
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and fifty-four and seven-tenths cents ($2.547)
four dollars and twenty-one and two tenths cents ($4.212) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October.
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly
quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full
billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base
Charge
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity
charge of one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They
shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and twenty and one-tenth cents
($2.201) three dollars and fifty-nine and nine tenths cents ($3.599) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The
meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge;
9
however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the
summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified
in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53) per
one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through
April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at
three dollars and sixteen and four-tenths cents ($3.164) five dollars and seventeen
and four tenths cents ($5.174) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer
season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally
determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be
billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge.
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
10
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall be
three dollars and six cents ($3.06) five dollars and fifty and four tenth cents ($5.504)
per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 4. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
4, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and eighteen and nine-tenths cents ($2.189) three
dollars and sixty-three and three tenths cents ($3.633) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and fifty-one and six-tenths cents ($2.516) four dollars
and thirty-six cents ($4.360) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
five dollars and twenty-three and two tenths cents ($5.232) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
eighty-nine and four-tenths cents ($2.894) six dollars and twenty-
seven and eight tenths cents ($6.278) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents
($16.61).
11
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and ten and nine-tenths cents ($2.109) three dollars and
fifty and nine tenths cents ($3.509) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and forty-two and four-tenths cents ($2.424) four
dollars and twenty-one cents ($4.210) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of five dollars and five and two tenths cents ($5.052) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
seventy-eight and nine-tenths cents ($2.789) six dollars and six and
three tenths cents ($6.063) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and fifty-four and seven-tenths cents ($2.547)
five dollars and seventeen and three tenths cents ($5.173) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October.
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly
quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full
billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base
Charge
12
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity
charge of one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They
shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and twenty and one-tenth cents
($2.201) four dollars and sixty-one cents ($4.610) per one thousand (1,000) gallons
used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date
shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no
customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity
charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified
in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53) per
one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through
April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at
three dollars and sixteen and four-tenths cents ($3.164) six dollars and sixty-two and
seven tenths cents ($6.627) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer
season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally
determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be
billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge.
13
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall be
three dollars and six cents ($3.06) seven dollars and five cents ($7.050) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 5. That the water rate structure described in this Ordinance for any Water Supply
Shortage Response Level shall go into effect and become the operative water rate structure for meter
readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month occurring after a City Manager declaration
of said Water Supply Shortage Response Level to be in effect.
Section 6. Except as otherwise modified by this Ordinance, all water rates, fees and
charges as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall continue
in full force and effect.
14
Section 7. That Subsection 3.N of Ordinance No. 048, 2003, deleting the definition of
“Water fountain”, and replacing it with a definition of “Water feature,” to read as follows.
N. Water fountain” shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into
the air, or is a waterfall or fountain for public display. The term water fountain shall not
mean a water feature of a pond or basis that performs a function essential to the support of
fish life in that pond or basin.
“Water feature” shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air,
or is a waterfall or fountain. The term water feature shall not mean a water feature of a pond
or basin that performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or basin, or a
water feature in a swimming pool.
Section 8. That item number 2.d, “Lawn & turf watering exceptions by permit, 4 acres or
more,” on page 2 of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan attached to Ordinance No. 048, 2003,
as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to read as follows.
15
Response
Level 1
Response
Level 2
Response
Level 3
Response
Level 4
2. Lawn & turf
watering
Exceptions by
permit
(Note: All permits must be displayed so they are visible from the street or sidewalk.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. 4 acres or more Permit required for a
special watering
schedule to
accommodate areas
of 4 acres or more.
Max. of 1.00” per
week. No watering
on Monday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule to
accommodate areas
of 4 acres or more.
Max. of 0.75” per
week. No watering
on Monday thru
Thursday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
No exceptions No exceptions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 9. That item number 2.e, “Lawn & turf watering exceptions by permit, City parks
& public athletic/playing fields,” on page 2 of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan attached to
Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to read as follows.
Response
Level 1
Response
Level 2
Response
Level 3
Response
Level 4
2. Lawn & turf
watering
Exceptions by
permit
(Note: All permits must be displayed so they are visible from the street or sidewalk.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. City parks &
public
athletic/playing
fields
Permit required for a
16
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Water features
Fountains
Public Display
Private
Unrestricted
No use allowed
Unrestricted
Unrestricted
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
No use allowed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day
of March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley,
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Brian Varrella
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to Development in the
Poudre River Floodplain.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation protecting life and
property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. Staff is recommending that Council adopt revisions to the City
Code that will establish a “performance-based” criteria and regulation that places more emphasis on life safety through
advance warning and evacuation.
The proposed Code language requires the development of a site-specific Emergency Response Preparedness Plan
(ERPP) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within
the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. The ERPP requires that procedures be established for evacuation a minimum
of two hours in advance of when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation
routes. The Code language requires that the ERPP be reviewed and updated annually if there are substantive
changes to elements of the plan. In order to facilitate the implementation of this new Code language, staff has
developed the following documents:
1. A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation
of site-specific ERPP’s
2. A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
The Working Committee and North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) support the new approach and
recommend that the proposed revisions to the Poudre River floodplain regulations be presented to City Council for
adoption. The Water Board recommended approval of the proposed revisions as an enhancement to the existing
regulations, but encouraged Council consider prohibiting any new structures (i.e., development, redevelopment, etc.)
in the 100-Year Floodplain.
Staff recommends that an effective date of July 1, 2013 be established so that advance notice can be provided to
property owners and applicants for development submittals.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council requested a review of the Stormwater program in October 2008. Staff identified a list of issues to be
addressed that included a review of the Poudre River floodplain regulations. The review was to focus on whether
revisions were needed to better address foreseeable flooding risks to improve life safety and reduce property damage
using a sustainable approach that considers environmental, economic and social factors. The current regulations
focus almost exclusively on protecting new structures from flooding damage.
Evolution of Floodplain Regulation Revisions
The floodplain regulations have undergone thorough investigation and extensive public outreach over the last 2 ½
years. Floodplain regulation options have been presented and discussed previously at four Council work sessions,
four Water Board meetings and three Natural Resources Advisory Board meetings.
A Working Committee was created to provide public discussion on these revisions met eleven times with Stormwater
and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff between January 2011 and June 2012. The objective was to research,
investigate and evaluate the potential development of an Adverse Impact Review (AIR) process and criteria. The
current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100-year flood fringe on the Poudre River that meets
specific criteria (i.e., freeboard, property use, etc.). Under these existing regulations, the potential flooding impacts
associated with such development are not analyzed. In addition, the group considered additional life safety and
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 6
property damage reduction criteria. The overarching goal was to establish criteria that balance the competing
economic, environmental, and public safety values of the Fort Collins community.
As a result of these efforts, and taking into account concerns expressed at Council work sessions regarding the
development of an implementable approach that addresses community values, the proposed revisions have evolved
over time.
Options presented to Council over this time include:
• No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative).
• The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway
• The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain.
• Adverse Impact Review (AIR).
The Working Committee and staff recommended to City Council that additional consideration be given to implementing
specific life safety and property damage criteria that will enhance and support the existing floodplain regulations.
At the work session in October 2011, Council directed staff to:
• Investigate a "scalable" AIR regulation that would require additional investigation for any development that
happens in areas with a higher potential impact to the flood elevations;
• Work with PFA for the development of specific code language;
• Examine a notification process similar to the Land Use Code with clarification of the associated legal issues
from the City Attorney's Office; and,
• Provide a consistent summary format for the various regulation comparison charts.
In 2012, Stormwater and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to
further evaluate the AIR process and develop specific life safety criteria. At its May 14, 2012 Working Committee
meeting, the general consensus was reached to discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation for the
Poudre River in consideration of:
• the future construction of the Poudre River Downtown Core Improvements and subsequent reduction in
potential development within the revised 100-year floodplain near College Avenue;
• the Link-N-Greens area will develop using a full CLOMR/ LOMR process that will include improvements and
enhancements to the Poudre River adjacent to the site;
• understanding that the Poudre River RiskMAP process will result in dramatically changed (corrected)
floodplain delineation, mapping and flood elevations;
• taking into account that the Floodway Surcharge Analysis identified primarily small floodway impacts to the
Poudre River section within the Mulberry Corridor; and,
• noting that the Mulberry Corridor is in the Growth Management Area (GMA) and not within the City Limits.
Floodplain Regulation Code Language Revisions
The current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100-year flood fringe on the Poudre River that
meets specific criteria (i.e., freeboard, property use, etc.). In addition, “dryland access” by elevating the access
roadways is a typical consideration to ensure the safe evacuation of properties, but only when feasible.
The final consensus of the Working Committee was that the Poudre River floodplain regulations should be revised to
improve life safety by requiring the preparation of site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs)
for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the
Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. Staff from the City and PFA were tasked with developing the final code language
to incorporate proposed revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations into the City Code.
The current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year flood elevations reflect significant
flooding depths (i.e., 2 to 3 feet on Vine Drive east of College Avenue) on existing public arterials and collectors that
serve these areas. Requiring the construction of new emergency fire apparatus (access) roads to serve these
properties in times of flooding is not feasible as it will result in excessive grades and extended lengths of “elevated”
roadways that do not appropriately provide for improved life safety and emergency response.
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 6
At the February 4, 2013 Working Committee meeting, staff proposed the following revisions which create a
“performance-based” life safety regulation. Staff proposed that the Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan
(ERPP) require procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance of when flood waters
will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. This places the emphasis on life safety
through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction of “elevated”
emergency access roads. It also avoids potential adverse floodplain impacts resulting from embankments constructed
to elevate new access roads. The proposed Code language that reflects the elimination of the fire apparatus
(emergency access) road requirements and includes the revised ERPP provisions is shown in Attachment 1.
In order to demonstrate how the process would work, staff presented the following documents:
• A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation
of site-specific ERPP’s
• A sample ERPP for a property within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain situated along Vine Drive; and,
• A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
The Working Committee provided valuable feedback and comments on the updated approach as well as the draft
Code language and ERPP forms. The latest versions of the ERPP template and annual checklist form are included
as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.
Effective Date
Staff recommends that an effective date of July 1, 2013 be established so that advance notice can be provided to
property owners and applicants for development submittals.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed approach of requiring Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) places more emphasis
on life safety through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction
of “elevated” emergency access roads. This approach is also significantly less costly than the scalable AIR approach.
The requirement to prepare an ERPP is triggered by an addition, substantial improvement, change of occupancy,
redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. Anticipated costs include those
that are more easily estimated (initial preparation of the ERPP, annual review and update if conditions have changed)
and implementation measures such as signage and instructions, emergency preparedness kit, mandatory practice
drills, staff training, etc. which are more variable depending on the property location, type of structure, etc. The cost
estimates for the ERPP itself are:
• Initial Cost of ERPP Preparation $500 to $4,000 (Depends on complexity of site)
• Annual Cost (Monitoring / Notices) $0 to $1,000 (Depends on use of own staff or contract with a
meteorological consultant).
Given the typically significant project costs associated with any of the development actions that would trigger the
requirement to prepare the ERPP, the costs involved with the ERPP process are considered by staff and the Working
Committee as reasonable in order to improve life safety.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The existing Poudre River Floodplain Regulations provide protection to the Poudre River by restricting development
in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Staff believes that the regulations in the Land Use
Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community and that any
additional code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection) would be redundant and not
provide a measurable additional benefit.
When the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review was first initiated, one of the key areas of concern was
protecting the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N-Greens Golf Course as this was
the largest privately owned, undeveloped property along the Poudre River. The current floodplain regulations in
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 6
combination with the Natural Resources Buffer regulations applied at the Link-N-Greens site are achieving the desired
outcomes that were discussed at the beginning of the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review process. As part
of the planned Woodward development of Link-N-Greens, considerable amounts of previously placed fill are being
removed to lower the overbank to allow flows to spread out more frequently. This provides for reduced velocities and
improved water quality. Some of this excavated material will be used to elevate the buildings to protect the structures
from flood damage. An old meander bend is being recreated to allow the river to be more connected with the
floodplain. Extensive plantings of native species will create more ecologically diverse habitats. Bank stabilization work
will mitigate erosion problems along the stream banks. The river restoration work is being modeled to ensure that
there is no rise in 100-year flood elevations on nearby property owners. The floodplain maps will be revised through
the FEMA CLOMR and LOMR process to reflect the changes. This is clearly a success story of how the existing
floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and
improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
It is the recommendation of staff that the existing Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the
proposed Code language introducing the requirement that a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness
Plan (ERPP) be prepared, implemented and maintained for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy,
redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The ERPP shall be reviewed annually by the
facility operator/owner and documentation shall be provided to the City during the first quarter of the calendar year for
plans requiring no changes (annual checklist form) and for plans requiring changes (new ERPP plus annual checklist
form).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Water Board
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Water Board had an extensive discussion regarding the original options and the
Adverse Impact Review (AIR) approach. Several Boardmembers questioned whether the proposed ERPP process
significantly increases life safety if the regulations still allow non-residential development in the 100-Year Floodplain.
Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is required by the
floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard (additional 2
feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding of and damage to the new construction. The current
regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees,
customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving
life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding. Prohibiting any new
structures in the 100-Year floodplain was championed by some Boardmembers as providing an even higher standard
for life safety.
Concern was expressed that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of the
natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Staff noted that the existing regulations provide protection to the Poudre
River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Staff believes that
the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired
by this community and that any additional Code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection)
is redundant and does not provide a measurable additional benefit. A key concern has been protecting the natural
and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N-Greens property. Staff from Stormwater, Natural Areas,
and Parks have been actively involved in collaboration throughout the development review process. The proposed
Woodward development is clearly a success story of how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources
buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the
floodplain.
The Water Board motion below was approved by a vote of 10 to 1::
“In order to mitigate life-safety hazards, the Water Board recommends that the existing Poudre River
floodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the proposed code language introducing the
March 18, 2013 -5- ITEM 6
requirement that a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan be prepared and
implemented for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or
new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The Water Board would further recommend that City
Council consider excluding new developments or structures within the 100-year floodplain.”
Attachment 4 contains an excerpt of the minutes from the February 21, 2013 Water Board meeting
Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)
At its February 20, 2013 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board had an extensive discussion regarding the
original options and NRAB’s previous recommendation that Council adopt the option prohibiting new structures in the
100-Year Floodplain. Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is
required by the floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard
(additional 2 feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding of and damage to the new construction. The
current regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees,
customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving
life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding.
NRAB members indicated that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of
the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Stormwater staff noted that the existing regulations provide
protection to the Poudre River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood
fringe. Both Stormwater and Natural Areas staff stated that the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related
to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community. The proposed Woodward
Development of the Link-N-Greens site presented to NRAB earlier in the evening was referenced as an example of
how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property
protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.
The NRAB chose not to provide a recommendation on the proposed draft Code language, citing the life safety focus
as being outside of its charter.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In 2012, Stormwater and PFA staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to further evaluate the AIR
process and develop specific life safety criteria. The Working Committee met five times in 2012 and recommended
that the development of a scalable AIR regulation be abandoned and that staff develop final Code language to limit
flood depths on new fire apparatus (emergency access) roads to six inches and require the preparation and
implementation of Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERRPs) for properties that pursue some type of
development or redevelopment.
Working Committee
At its February 4, 2013 meeting, the Working Committee concurred with the staff proposal to eliminate the six-inch
flood depth criteria for emergency access roads and instead modify the ERRP requirements to create a “performance-
based” life safety regulation requiring procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance
of when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. The Working
Committee Meeting minutes are provided in Attachment 5. In summary, the Working Committee’s recommendations
to Council are:
1. Discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation; and,
2. Adopt the proposed draft Code language that requires new construction, additions, substantial improvements,
redevelopment or change of occupancy of structures within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain to develop,
obtain approval of, and implement an Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan.
Chamber of Commerce
On February 8, 2013, the proposed Code language and accompanying ERRP process, template and annual checklist
were presented to the Chamber of Commerce. Attendees provided varied input and feedback on the process, but in
March 18, 2013 -6- ITEM 6
general expressed that the new approach was much preferable to the AIR process that had been under consideration
previously.
North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA)
On February 12, 2013, staff received an email (Attachment 6) from the North Fort Collins Business Association
(NFCBA) expressing appreciation for the work that has gone into the investigation of potential revisions to the Poudre
River Floodplain Regulations. The NFCBA is in support of the updated approach and identified some
concerns/questions to be addressed in finalizing the process:
1. Clarify the potential liability for businesses, individuals that submit ERPP plans;
2. Recommend that the City consider providing training on the ERPP process;
3. Increase clarity on who is responsible for the ERPP (i.e., building owner, tenant);
4. Provide better information on expected initial / annual costs;
5. Recommend the City develop/offer a grant program for ERPP costs; and,
6. Requested that Council finalize the FP regulation review.
Staff will address these issues in the finalization of the Code language and administrative procedures associated with
the ERPP process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Code Language (Chapter 10 – Flood Prevention and Protection)
2. Draft ERPP Template
3. Draft ERPP Annual Checklist Form
4. Water Board minutes, February 21, 2013
5. Working Committee Meeting Summary minutes, February 4, 2013
6. Email from NFCBA Board Secretary, February 12, 2013
7. Council Work Session Summary, October 25, 2011
8. Council Work Session Summary, February 22, 2011
9. Council Work Session Summary, January 11, 2011
10. Council Work Session Summary, August 24, 2010
11. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
Summary of Proposed Floodplain Regulation Changes
For the Poudre River
Revised 0-23-2013
Municipal Code Chapter 10 - Flood Prevention and Protection
Definitions to be added to Section 10-16
Emergency response and preparedness plan
Fire code – will reference Chapter 9 of Municipal Code
Evacuation
Shelter-In-Place
Dry public road
Change of Occupancy
Section 10-27 (Floodplain Use Permits)
Require documentation of an emergency response plan, if required by Chapter 10.
When the Utilities Executive Director is reviewing the application and determining if it
meets the intent of Chapter 10, one of the factors to be considered is whether the
proposed use is for human occupancy, and if so, the impacts to human safety and the
extent to which emergency response and preparedness and other measures are required
and have been assured in order to reduce safety risk.
Clarify that the Utilities Executive Director may request a condition be placed on the
release of the certificate of occupancy upon submission of final documentation of
compliance.
New Section 10-48 - Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans – (This will apply
only to specific actions in the Poudre River Floodplain as noted below)
For any structure required to submit an emergency response and preparedness plan, the
following emergency planning and preparedness requirements will apply:
Formatted: Centered
Deleted: 1
Deleted: Municipal Code Chapter 9 – Fire
Prevention and Protection¶
¶
New item for inclusion in Section 503¶
¶
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed so as to
not have more than 6” of flood depth in the
regulatory 100-year flood event.¶
Deleted: ground
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
I. Items to be included in an Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan
1. Risk Assessment
a. Source, flood frequency, expected duration, timing, depth of flooding,
b. Expected impact on activity and operations
c. Identification of persons potentially impacted
d. Impact on evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access to the site
2. Description of the method of receipt of flood warning
3. Identification and assignment of personnel to implement the plan
4. Procedures for Notification of employees, customers, and other building
occupants, including:
a. Contact information
b. Redundant methods of notification
c. Safeguards to ensure all employees received the notification; and
d. General content of the notices to be provided
5. Description of Procedures for both Evacuation or Shelter-In-Place of building
occupants, including:
a. Method and responsibility for determination of appropriate response
(evacuation or shelter-in-place). For the Poudre River, shelter-in-place is
used only as a secondary response with evacuation as the primary
response.
b. Description of evacuation process, including
i. Timing of opportunity to evacuate requiring for the Poudre River a
minimum of two hours of lead time from when flood waters
would impact the site or any portion of the evacuation routes.
ii. Map and directions with evacuation routes including exits from
building and from building to dry ground.
iii. Mode of evacuation – walking, car, and/or provided transportation.
iv. Alternative routes for evacuation when preferred routes are washed
out or otherwise impassable
c. A description of shelter-in-place, including:
i. Description of safe on-site areas for shelter-in-place occupation
ii. Development and maintenance of emergency preparedness kit
containing supplies for three days including such items as food,
water, blankets, flashlights, NOAA Weather radios, batteries
iii. A communication plan for informing emergency contacts of those
sheltered-in-place
6. Procedures for Protecting the Building from Damage or Hazardous Conditions,
including:
a. Plan for shut down of utilities or equipment
b. Relocation of computers, documents, important resources to higher areas
c. Required or other appropriate floodproofing measures
7. A Process for Distribution and Posting of Plan and Evacuation Routes and
Shelter-In-Place Instructions
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: no more than
ATTACHMENT 1
3
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold
8. A description of Mandatory Training and Practice Drills; including
a. Procedures for training employees, including future new employees
b. Annual practice drills (plan during the first quarter of the calendar year)
implementing the plan
c. Documentation of practice drills and identified areas for improvement
9. A Description of Post Flood Recovery Measures, including
a. Procedures for notification to employees and, if applicable, the public,
of when it is safe to return
b. Site clean-up procedures
II. Documentation of emergency response and preparedness plan and required practice
drills and related process improvements shall be on file and available at the
facility for inspection. The plan shall be reviewed annually by the facility
operator/owner and documentation shall be provided to the City during the
first quarter of the calendar year for plans requiring no changes (City-provided
form) and for plans requiring changes (new emergency response and
preparedness plan).
Sections 10-71 (Poudre Floodway), 10-76 (Poudre Flood Fringe Non-Residential
Development) and 10-77 (Poudre Flood-Fringe Mixed-Use Development
New construction, additions, substantial improvements, edevelopment, or change of
occupancy of any structure shall be required to comply with the emergency response and
preparedness requirements (see above).
Deleted: <#> Documentation of PFA-approved
fire apparatus access road shall be provided.¶
Deleted: or rr
Deleted: Sections 10-74 (Change of Use - Poudre
Floodway) and Section 10-79 (Change of Use –
Poudre Flood Fringe)¶
¶
Any Change of Use shall be required to comply with
the emergency response and preparedness
requirements (see above).¶
1
Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP)
In order to mitigate life-safety hazards to occupants of private property within the Poudre River floodplain,
Chapter 10 of City Code requires for non-residential and mixed-use additions, substantial improvements,
change of use, redevelopment and/or new development that private property owners demonstrate flood-
preparedness through the development and implementation of a site-specific Emergency Response and
Preparedness Plan (ERPP). The plan includes, at a minimum, conditions and methods for emergency
preparedness and evacuation from the property. If desired by the property owner, additional measures for flood
protection may be included.
Applicant Information
Name of Business: Type of Business:
Address:
Street Address Unit #
City State ZIP Code
County Parcel ID #: Business Phone Number: ( )
Reason for Review: Redevelopment Annual Update
New Structure Addition
Change of Occupancy Other:
Substantial Improvement
Designated Responsible Party and Status of ERPP
Submitted Date:
Accepted Date: City Staff Signature:
By signing this Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP), I understand that this property is at risk of flooding. I
understand that the ERPP is a tool to help in the planning and response for potential flood events. In the first quarter of each
year I agree to: 1) review the ERPP and submit any changes to Fort Collins Utilities; and 2) if there are no changes to the
ERPP, I will submit the necessary paperwork documenting that the plan has been reviewed, and 3) I will conduct a practice
drill of the ERPP. I understand that the ERPP may not consider all possible scenarios that could result in property damage or
life-safety issues related to flooding and that it is the responsibility of owners, operators and managers of an occupied facility to
be aware of the potential flood threat and to take appropriate actions to protect lives and property.
Signature of Designated
Responsible Party:
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Authorized Persons (Staff Contacts)
The Designated Responsible Person is responsible for preparation and oversight of implementation of the plan. The
Primary Person may be the same, or a different, person, who is responsible for executing the plan in the event of an
emergency. The Primary Person, and Backup Person, as applicable, will redirect resources and, ultimately, shut down
operations, if necessary. These persons will also initiate evacuation in the event of an emergency. I understand that the
ERPP is a tool to help in the planning and response for potential flood events. I understand that the ERPP may not
consider all possible scenarios that could result in property damage or life-safety issues related to flooding and that it is
the responsibility of owners, operators and managers of an occupied facility to be aware of the potential flood threat and
to take appropriate actions to protect lives and property.
Primary Person: E-Mail Address:
(Name)
Title: Work Phone: ( )
Cell Phone: ( )
Other Contact: ( )
The back-up person should be trained to fulfill all the duties of the primary person (monitor weather radio, have necessary
apps/programs installed on personal devices).
Back-Up Person: E-Mail Address:
(Name)
Title: Work Phone: ( )
Cell Phone: ( )
Other Contact: ( )
1. Flood Risk Assessment
a. Source of Flood Risk: Poudre River
Not all floods are the same. While some floods develop slowly over days of heavy rain, others come in the form of swift
moving flash floods, developing in mere minutes. It is important to monitor not only local conditions, but also upstream
conditions that may include the following:
Short Response Times (Minutes to Hours)
Flash Floods due to local rain
Rain on snow
Dam Break
Debris Blockage up/downstream
Longer Response Times (Hours to Days)
Rain on Snow
Snowmelt
Debris Blockage up/downstream
The property must be evaluated for how it will be impacted by flooding. This includes the direction from which flood
waters will come onto the property; critical infrastructure that will be impacted (i.e. buildings, access, etc.); and the
potential for debris blockage that will change the flooding characteristics and/or timing.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
This section to be filled out by an engineer:
3
To complete the information below, identify the location of the critical infrastructure that will be impacted first and complete
all information with respect to that location.
Critical Infrastructure Location: _________________ Elevation: _______ Source of Elevation Data: _____________
100-Year Floodplain Elevation: Flow (cfs): Map Date: Depth of Flooding:
50-Year Floodplain Elevation: Flow (cfs): Map Date: Depth of Flooding:
10-Year Floodplain Elevation: Flow (cfs): Map Date: Depth of Flooding:
b. While some floods may last only a few hours, others may persist for weeks at a time.
Potential impact on activity and operations: No impact
Some operations shut down
All operations shut down, evacuation
Building Flooded
Hazardous-Material Spill
Materials Floating Off-Site
c. Persons potentially impacted:
(i.e. employees, customers, vendors, suppliers, renters of space)
d. Impact on evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access to site:
How 100-yr flood will restrict
access:
How 50-yr flood will restrict access:
How 10-yr flood will restrict access:
No access restriction due to
flooding:_______________________________________________________________
Critical Infrastructure Trigger Point
When condition(s) trigger the 2 Hour Evacuation Warning? (Evaluate based on loss of access, impact to building,
potential debris blockage, timing, etc.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4
2. Method of Receipt of Flood Warning (Check all that apply)
As a baseline expectation, responsible party shall monitor weather using tools such as CWCB Colorado Flood
Threat web page, NWS Outlooks and Forecasts, etc.
Weather Radio Backup batteries?
(Make/Model) – See Appendix for Supplementary Information
State Stream Gage at Mouth of Canyon (Primary)
URL: http://www.dwr.state.co.us/SurfaceWater/data/detail_graph.aspx?ID=CLAFTCCO
USGS Stream Gage at Lincoln Ave (Secondary)
See Appendix for Gage Monitoring Resources
USGS Water Alert Program
(Gage Selected) (Gage Height) (Monitoring Device)
Contract w/ Private Company for Notification:
(Company Name) (Basis for Notification)
Other:
3. Identification and Assignment of Personnel to Implement Plan (Chain of Command)
In the event that the primary person is unavailable for whatever reason, at least one additional person must be trained on
all notification and decision making processes. The same person may fill multiple roles.
Primary Lead Person: ( )
(May Be Same as 1st Page) (Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Back-Up Lead Person: ( )
(May Be Same as 1st Page) (Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Monitor Water Level/Evacuation Leader: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Shut Down Operations: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Relocate Equipment/Materials: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Notify Employees of Emergency*: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Notify Employees OK to Return: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
Lock-Up of Building/Final Check for Employees: ( )
(Name) (Title) (Phone Number)
*The applicant must keep and maintain a list of all employees and their contact information that must be notified
of an emergency. General employee contact info does not need to be submitted to the City. Businesses shall
maintain a list of standardized procedures for these tasks (not required to be submitted).
5
4. Procedures for Notifying Employees, Customers, and other Building Occupants
a Redundant Methods of Notification (Circle all that apply):
PA Announcement, Call, Text, E-Mail, Other Notification(s):
Describe Notification Process (Priority of Techniques):
c. Safeguards to ensure all employees receive the notification:
d. General content of notices to be provided:
Example: “Severe flood warning at the ______ facility. Evacuate to higher ground immediately using evac route A”
If time allows, notify vendors/suppliers of shutdown.
5. Procedures for Evacuation or Shelter-In-Place of Building Occupants
a.
Determination of appropriate response:
Description of evacuation process: Ready, Set, GO!
The ready, set, go system will allow site specific criteria to be chosen so it will be clear when to get going in the event of a
flood. Describe specific response actions for each:
Ready: Triggered by observation of weather conditions, thunderstorm or flood watch issued by the National
Weather Service. Start actively watching stream gages via computer/smartphone. Pay close attention to weather
radio and weather conditions.________________________________________________________________
Set: Conditions suggest a potential flood. Notify employees of possible need for evacuation. Prepare vehicles for
evacuation. Initiate any planned flood protection measures. _____________________________________
GO: Time to evacuate. Notify employees. Go to rally point or dismiss employees. The goal is to leave at least 2
hours before the property will be affected by flood water. __________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Site specific stream gage indicator table. To be filled out by Engineer.
Gage
Height Water Level Indication
This section to be filled out by an engineer:
6
Preparation process will begin at the following gage height: Feet (This is the Set Point)
Or when NWS __________________ alert is issued or ______________________________________
Evacuation process will begin at the following gage height: Feet (This is the GO Point)
Or when NWS __________________ alert is issued or
Mode of evacuation: Personal Vehicles
Walking
Company Provided Transportation
Map of primary and alternative evacuation routes and building exits has been prepared and attached
Rally Point Address/Location:
Primary Route to Rally Point:
Secondary Route to Rally Point:
c. Shelter-in-place:
For the Poudre River flood hazard area, shelter in place is used only as a secondary response with evacuation as the
primary response.
Potential locations for on-site shelter-in-place occupation:
(i.e. Second Story Office)
Emergency preparedness kit supplies: Food Flashlights
Water NOAA Weather radios
Blankets Batteries
First Aid Kit Phone List of Emergency Contacts for
Employees
6. Procedures for Protecting Building from Damage or Hazardous Conditions
a. Plan to shut down utilities and equipment:
Important things to do before evacuating (during Set phase): Shut off natural gas
Shut off power
Shut down water supply
Move Floatable Materials to a
Secure Location
Equipment to shut down:
7
b.
Relocation of computers, documents, and important resources to higher areas or offsite
Location to move resources to:
c.
List other flood protection measures to be taken: (Ex. sandbags, install floodproofing gates or closure shields)
*Any flood protection materials need to be clearly labeled and inventoried annually. These are optional at the discretion of
the property owner, unless required as part of a floodplain use permit for a construction of a new structure, addition,
substantial improvement, or redevelopment.
7. Process for Distribution and posting of Plan and Evacuation Routes
Company-Wide meeting discussing ERPP: Date:
Map of evacuation routes displayed in multiple visible locations:
List of Posting Locations:
Shelter-in-place areas clearly identified along with evacuation maps:
Shelter-in-place areas remain unlocked and be clearly identifiable (signage):
8. Mandatory Training and Practice Drills
a. Develop procedures for training employees, including future new employees
(include in new employee orientation):
Describe Training Process:
b. Annual practice drills implementing the plan (Mandatory during 1st quarter of the year):
Date of most
recent practice:
c. Documentation of drills, keep track of places for improvement:
Track areas done well and areas for improvement
d. Annual update sent to City Date:
8
9. Post Flood Recovery Measures
All flood water is considered to be hazardous and not safe for direct contact due to potential wastewater contamination.
The following items are suggested as typical flood recovery measures. Specific actions are at the risk and discretion of
the property owner, and a specific flood recovery plan is recommended but not required to be submitted to the City.
a. Procedure to notify employees and, if applicable, the public, when it is safe to return:
Once the site is deemed safe, employees/vendors/renters should be notified that they
may return. This can be done many ways: call, text, email, update website, etc.
b. Site clean-up procedures:
Thorough documentation for insurance claims (pictures, inspection, damage assessment)
Inspection for animals, particularly snakes displaced by flood
Document flood levels
Contact insurance company
Contact restoration company
Mold remediation
Bleach, disinfection
IT Issues
Restore Utilities
Hazardous-Material Clean-up
City Substantial Damage Documentation
Building Permit for Needed Repairs
Health Inspection
Employee Assistance
Clean-Up of Equipment/Machinery
9
Appendix – Resources
Weather Radios
Many brands and models of weather radios are available for purchase. These
vary from small desktop units to large scale systems that tie into a PA system. When
looking for a weather radio to alert employees and customers of potential emergencies,
there are a few key features to look for:
NWR S.A.M.E. (Specific Area Message Encoding) Capability
o Allows user to receive only alerts for selected regions
Selectable alerting of events
o This feature will allow the user to program the radio telling it what type of
alerts to ignore
Battery backup
o Keeps radio running even if all power is lost
It is recommended that users look for weather radios with the Public Alert
and/or the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards logo
Tone alarm
o Alerts users of notification
External antenna
o If poor reception is discovered in the area where the radio is to be used,
an antenna will boost the signal
External device jack
o If the radio is in the front office which may not always be occupied,
attachments such as strobe lights can be connected, alerting those
outside the building of an alert
10
National Weather Service Streamflow levels
The NWS notification stages and messaging for the Poudre River at the Mouth of the
Canyon (FTDC2) revised 4/20/2010 are as follows:
Action Stage: 6.0 ft
Bankfull Stage: 6.5 ft
Flood Stage: 7.5 ft
Flood Categories
Minor Flood Stage: 7.5 ft (Through 2011, a 57% chance of occurrence)
Moderate Flood Stage: 9.0 ft (Through 2011, <10% chance)
Major Flood Stage: 10.5 ft (Through 2011, <10% chance)
Damage – Stage and Areas Affected
6.0 ft The river begins to threaten the McConnell Subdivision in LaPorte
6.5 ft The Cache la Poudre river will begin to overflow into low lying areas in and near Fort Collins
7.5 ft Considerable overbank flow and localized flooding occurs downstream in and near Fort Collins
8.5 ft The river rises to the base of the bridge at College Avenue in Fort Collins
9.0 ft Water flows into homes at College Avenue in Fort Collins
10.5 ft Numerous buildings are flooded in and near the town of LaPorte
National Weather Service Watches and Warnings
Terms to Know:
Flood
Watch
Atmospheric and hydrologic conditions are favorable for long duration areal
or river flooding.
Flash Flood
Watch
Atmospheric and hydrologic conditions are favorable for short duration flash
flooding and/or a dam break is possible.
Flood
Advisory
Thunderstorms have produced heavy rainfall that may result in ponding of
water on roadways and in low-lying areas, as well as rises in small stream
levels.
Flood
Warning
Long duration areal or river flooding is imminent or occurring or is
imminent, which may result from excessive rainfall, rapid snow melt, ice
jams on rivers or other similar causes
Flash Flood
Warning
Excessive rainfall producing thunderstorms have developed, leading to short
duration flash flooding. Flash flooding is imminent or occurring. A warning
may also be issued if a dam break has occurred.
11
Accessing Stream Gages
Canyon Mouth Stream Gage
There are multiple stream gages in the Poudre River that will be helpful in monitoring
for potentially dangerous flows. One of these is located at the mouth of Poudre
Canyon. This state-owned gage will be useful for watching for flash floods. If high flows
are seen at this point on the Poudre River, they will reach Fort Collins in approximately
2 hours. If a flash flood warning is issued on a weather radio, the Division of Water
Resources (DWR) website will allow users to track flow rates at the mouth of the
canyon. This will enable users to watch for impending flood events. To get there, follow
this URL: dwr.state.co.us
On this page, you will see a map of Colorado. In the “Abbreviation” box to the
right, type in the abbreviation CLAFTCCO and click “Get Station”.
12
On this page, a graph of discharges can be seen, along with the current gage height. It
is recommended that you bookmark this page so it can be quickly accessed if need be.
Compare the current gage height to your ERPP Ready, Set, Go Gage heights.
Lincoln St. Gage
This gage is located at Lincoln St. in the Poudre River and is useful for tracking
slower flood events. There are 3 methods for monitoring this gage:
1. The easiest way to stay up to date on river conditions at critical times is to
subscribe to the USGS Water Alert program. To do this, go to this website:
http://tinyurl.com/USGSWaterAlert and fill out the subscription form.
a. It is highly recommended that you use your mobile phone to receive
notifications to ensure you get them in time.
b. In the “Threshold Condition” section, select the bubble for “Greater than
(>)” and type “9” into the box. This will alert the user via text message
when the stream gauge reads 9 feet of water, equivalent to 4210 cfs. At
this stream height, the water is approaching the base of the College Ave.
Action should be taken.
2. For iPhone users, a free app is available for download called FloodWatch.
This app will use your location to find river gauges nearby. Select the
gauge on the Poudre River near Linden St.
a. Save this location to your favorite when prompted to do so (Figure 1).
Figu
b. Once
curre
the tim
key g
show
4).
Figure
re 1: Stream
e this locatio
nt status of
me of the m
gauge heigh
w a graph of
e 2: Basics Ta
Gauge @ Lin
on is saved
f the water
most recent
hts and thei
f the water
ab Fig
nden
, the “Basic
level (rising
update (Fi
ir meanings
level activit
gure 3: Stage
cs” tab will
g or falling)
igure 2). T
s (Figure 3
ty over the
es Tab
show up di
, the curren
The “Stages
3). The “He
previous 7
Figure 4
splaying th
nt height, an
s” tab displa
eight” tab w
days (Figu
4: Height Tab
13
e
nd
ays
ill
ure
14
3. The first is to go to the USGS website: waterdata.usgs.gov.
a. From here, click on “Current Conditions”
b. On the map of the United States, click on Colorado
c. Click the link on the right titles “Colorado Statewide Streamflow Real-Time
Table”
d. Scroll down the page until you see “Cache La Poudre” and click on the link
to “06752260 – Cache La Poudre at Fort Collins, CO”
e. On this page you will see a graph displaying the flow level in real time
f. Compare this depth to the following table
1
Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP)
Annual Update
In order to mitigate life-safety hazards to occupants of private property within the Poudre River floodplain, Chapter
10 of City Code requires for additions, substantial improvements, change of use, redevelopment and/or new
development that private property owners demonstrate flood-preparedness through the development and
implementation of a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP). The plan includes, at
a minimum, conditions and methods for emergency preparedness and evacuation from the property.
This Annual Update form shall be completed by the private property owner and submitted to the City during the
first quarter of the calendar year for ERPP’s requiring no changes. If updates and/or revisions to the plan are
necessary, an updated ERRP must be submitted to the City along with the Annual Update form.
Applicant Information
Name of Business: Business Phone Number: ( )
Name of Responsible Party:
Primary Phone Number of
Responsible Party: ( )
Annual Review of Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP)
The following questions are intended to identify whether it is necessary to prepare and submit an updated ERPP to the
City. If the answer to any of the following questions is “Yes”, then That portion of the ERPP needs to be updated and
submitted to the City.
a. Are there any changes to the Authorized Persons and their respective contact information? Yes No
b. Has the Responsible Party identified in the approved ERPP changed? Yes No
c. Have there been any alternations or changes to ground elevations on the property (i.e.
landscaping, parking lots, etc.) that could require an updated determination of the lowest elevation
on the property?
Yes No
d. Review the primary and secondary evacuation routes. Are there any changes to these routes that
would prevent their use?
Yes No
e. Have you changed your methods for receipt of flood warning notices? Yes No
f. Are there any changes to the information contained in the “Identification and Assignment of
Personnel to Implement Plan (Chain of Command)” section of the approved ERPP?
Yes No
g. Are any changes proposed to the procedures for notifying employees, customers and other
building occupants as outlined in the approved ERPP?
Yes No
h. Are any changes appropriate or required to the designated trigger event for either:
1. Emergency Response Preparation Process? Yes No
2. Evacuation process? Yes No
i. Are any changes proposed to the “Rally Point(s)” identified in the approved ERPP? Yes No
j. Have there been any changes to the property (i.e. building, equipment) that necessitate additional
procedures to protect the property from damage or hazardous conditions during a flood event?
Yes No
k. Does the evacuation route and shelter in place signage need to be updated? Yes No
l. Do the mandatory training procedures and process need to be updated based on change in
business operations, staffing, or other factors?
Yes No
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Annual Review of ERPP
Submitted Date:
Accepted Date: City Staff Signature:
By signing this Annual Update, I certify that the approved ERPP on file with the City of Fort Collins remains applicable and
does not require updating or has been updated and is hereby resubmitted in addition to this annual update form. I
understand that this property is at risk of flooding and that the ERPP is a tool to help in the planning and response for potential
flood events. In the first quarter of each year I agree to: 1) review the ERPP and submit any changes to Fort Collins Utilities;
and 2) if there are no changes to the ERPP, I will submit the necessary paperwork documenting that the plan has been
reviewed, and 3) I will conduct a practice drill of the ERPP. I understand that the ERPP may not consider all possible
scenarios that could result in property damage or life-safety issues related to flooding and that it is my responsibility to be
aware of the potential flood threat and to take appropriate actions to protect lives and property.
Signature of Responsible Party:
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
1
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
(Attachments available upon request).
Mr. Haukaas introduced the item and introduced Stormwater and Floodplain Program
Manager Ken Sampley.
Mr. Sampley presented the purpose of the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
Review:
Review of the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations is the final component of the
Stormwater Repurposing effort.
Review focused on whether revisions were needed to better address foreseeable
flooding risks to improve life safety and reduce property damage using a
sustainable approach that considers environmental, economic, and social
factors.
Thorough investigation and extensive public outreach over the last two years.
As a result of the extensive investigations and public outreach, proposed revisions have
evolved over time. The original regulations included three options. A fourth option has
been added to allow non-residential development that meets the Adverse Impact
Review (AIR) Criteria.
This item was presented to the Water Board in 2010 and 2011. Mr. Sampley presented
the Water Board recommendation from September 2011. The item was also presented
at a City Council Work Session in October 2011. Mr. Sampley presented Council’s
direction to Staff.
Staff and a working committee met five times between February and June 2012. Mr.
Sampley presented the committee’s original recommendations:
Discontinue the development of a scalable Adverse Impact Review (AIR)
regulation for the Poudre River.
Stormwater and PFA staff should develop final code language to implement the
following life-safety criteria.
Upon further consideration and detailed evaluation, Stormwater and PFA staff
determined it was impractical and infeasible for many properties adjacent to the Poudre
to construct fire apparatus roads to meet the proposed maximum flooding depth of six
inches. Staff proposed revising the Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan
(ERPP) requirements to create a “performance-based” regulation:
Eliminates the requirement to construct elevated emergency access roads
Requires that procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours
in advance when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the
designated evacuation routes. This places more emphasis on life safety through
advance warning and evacuation.
Staff presented their rational for eliminating the fire apparatus road 6 inch maximum
flooding depth criteria to the Working Committee on February 4, 2013. The Working
Committee discussed the new approach and provided feedback and comments. The
Working Committee revised its recommendation to concur with that of Staff.
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
2
This information was presented to the Chamber of Commerce on February 8, 2013.
Staff presented the rationale. The attendees discussed the new approach and provided
feedback and comments. The information was also discussed by the North Fort Collins
Business Association (NFCBA). The NFCBA is in support of the updated approach;
however, they did have questions concerning liability, training, costs, etc.
Mr. Sampley presented a summary of the code language provisions. He also presented
the ERPP, including a template, example, and annual checklist form. Staff recommends
the existing Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the proposed
code language introducing the requirement that a site-specific ERPP be prepared,
implemented and maintained for additions, substantial improvements, change of
occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain.
Additional Considerations
Staff maintains that the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre River are
best addressed in the Land Use Code, most notably the Poudre River Buffer
requirements.
Adoption of new Floodplain Rules and Regulations for the State of Colorado as
approved by the CWCB will be presented to the Water Board in late
summer/early fall 2013.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member expressed concern about the effectiveness of this approach.
A board member questioned the liability related to the ERPP Template. The
board member suggested the form should have a signature line for the engineer
completing the form.
A board member inquired about the consequence of not conducting an annual
update. Mr. Sampley stated there is not an enforcement provision; however, an
annual update would be required prior to any subsequent development review
actions or approvals.
A board member suggested the form should have a section concerning if the
property owner has been notified of changes to the floodplain.
The board members and staff discussed the concept of more stringent floodplain
regulations versus the proposed emergency plan.
A board member feels new buildings should not be constructed in the floodplain.
The board member feels the ERPP Plans are not sufficient and that individuals
will still be at risk. The board member is also concerned about the rise to the
floodplain if there are new developments.
A board member feels there is not political support from Council to keep new
developments from being constructed in the floodplain.
A board member asked for clarification on how many new structures this applies
to. The difficulties of predicting future development on the relatively small number
of remaining parcels in the 100-Year floodplain were discussed.
A key concern has been protecting the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre
River near the Link-N-Greens property. The proposed Woodward development was
identified as a success story of how existing floodplain regulations and natural resources
buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural
and beneficial functions of the floodplain.
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, February 21, 2013
3
A board member asked how often the ERPP process will be reviewed. Mr.
Sampley stated this will likely occur when the Poudre River floodplain is
remapped as part of the FEMA RiskMAP program in 2015 or 2016.
A board member asked for clarification on how sediment from the High Park Fire
will impact the floodplain within the next 10 – 15 years. Mr. Sampley stated
sediment will have an impact on the floodplain as well as the water supply and
measures may need to be taken. Mr. Haukaas reiterated that staff has no way to
know the effects at this time.
The board members and staff discussed future modeling for the floodplain.
Mr. Haukaas suggested the board take action on what staff is proposing. If there
are additional actions that staff should take related to the issue, the board can
offer their suggestions.
A board member supports the suggested motion because it is a step forward, but
feels it does not go far enough to protect the floodplain.
Discussion on the motion:
A board member would like to recommend that City Council consider no new structures
in the floodplain. The board member feels this would still allow staff to move forward
with the proposed regulations.
The board discussed a friendly amendment to the motion.
Vote on the motion: 10 for, 1 against.
Reason for the nay vote:
Board Member Brunswig: The plans are not enough and will not be implemented or
followed correctly to serve the intended purpose.
Board Member Brown moved that in order to mitigate life-safety hazards, the Water
Board recommend that the existing Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to
incorporate the proposed code language introducing the requirement that a site-specific
Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan be prepared and implemented for
additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new
development within the 100-Year floodplain. Board Member Garner seconded the
motion.
Amended Motion: Board Member Brown moved that in order to mitigate life-safety
hazards, the Water Board recommend that the existing Poudre River floodplain
regulations be revised to incorporate the proposed code language introducing the
requirement that a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan be prepared
and implemented for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy,
redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The Water
Board would further recommend that City Council consider excluding new developments
or structures within the 100-year floodplain. Board Member Garner seconded the
motion.
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
AGENDA
I. Introduction / Opening Remarks (5 Min) Susanne Durkin-Schindler
II. Minutes from June 25, 2012 Meeting (5 Min) Susanne Durkin-Schindler
III. Emergency Access (fire apparatus) Roads (15 min) Ken Sampley
A. Review SW and PFA Staff discussions
B. Review prior 6” Flooding Depth Criteria
C. Practicability, Financial, Flood Impacts
1. Vine Drive Example
D. Change to Performance-Based Approach
IV. Presentation/Discussion on Draft Language (20 Min) Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
A. Elimination of Revision to Fire Code
(Section 503)
B. Revisions to City Code (Chapter 10)
1. Revised draft Code Language
V. Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (40 Min) Ken Sampley and
A. Overview and Process Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
B. Draft ERPP Template
C. Example ERPP Plan
D. Draft Annual Checklist Form
E. Review and Discuss
VI. Recommendation of Working Committee (20 Min) Susanne Durkin-Schindler
VII. Public Outreach and Opportunities (10 Min) Ken Sampley
A. Water Board (Feb. 21) and NRAB (Feb. 20)
B. North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) – TBD
C. Chamber of Commerce (Feb. 8)
VIII. City Council (5 Min) Ken Sampley
A. March 5, 2013 Regular Council Meeting
IX. Adjourn Susanne Durkin-Schindler
ATTACHMENT 5
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Facilitator:
Susanne Durkin-Schindler
Working Committee:
Mike Gavin Mike Bello Andrea Faucett
Brad Anderson Sean Dougherty Dean Hoag
Mike Oberlander Ken Sampley Brian Varrella
Megan Bolin Greg Koch Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
Ron Gonzales John Hunt
Others:
Jon Haukaas Chris Pletcher (Ayres Associates)
MEETING SUMMARY
Introduction / Opening Remarks
Susanne Durkin-Schindler welcomed the attendees and provided introductory comments.
Minutes from June 25, 2012 Meeting
Susanne noted that the minutes from the June 25, 2012 Working Committee were distributed to
Committee Members and interested parties by email on January 28, 2013. Also attached to the email
were the following electronic documents that respond to previous input, and provide more detail on
the proposed code language changes:
Save The Poudre Letter Response – 01_23_13
Letter to PRF Regulations Working Committee – 01_23_13
Attachment 1 – Final Draft Summary (Track Changes Version) of Poudre River Floodplain
Regulation Changes 01-23-13
Susanne asked if there were any clarifications or changes to the minutes and none were offered. She
asked that any requested changes be submitted to Ken Sampley by the end of the week.
Emergency Access (Fire Apparatus) Roads
Ken Sampley noted that at the June 25, 2012 Working Committee meeting, staffs from the City and
Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) were tasked with developing the final code language to incorporate
proposed revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations into the City Code for the City of Fort
Collins.
However, upon further consideration and detailed evaluation by Stormwater and PFA Staffs, it was
determined that the criteria requiring the construction of fire apparatus (emergency access) roads for
new construction or redevelopments in the Poudre River 100-Year Floodplain to meet a proposed
maximum flooding depth of 6 inches is impractical and infeasible for many properties adjacent to the
Poudre River. The current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year flood
elevations reflect significant flooding depths (i.e. 2 to 3 feet on Vine Drive east of College Avenue) on
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
existing public arterials and collectors that serve these areas. Requiring the construction of new
emergency fire apparatus (access) roads to serve these properties in times of flooding will result in
excessive grades and extended lengths of “elevated” roadways that do not appropriately provide for
improved life safety and emergency response. Ken illustrated the issue using an aerial photograph of
the properties near the College Avenue and Vine Drive intersection.
As a result, Staff has proposed the following revisions which create a “performance-based” regulation.
Rather than require the construction of new emergency access roads to meet the 100-Year storm
event, it is proposed that the Emergency Response Preparedness Plan (ERPP) require procedures
be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance of when flood waters will impact the
site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. This will be discussed in more detail later
in the meeting.
Mike Bello asked what will trigger the requirement to prepare the ERPP. Ken noted that it would be
required for properties/structures that are proposing either an addition, substantial improvement,
change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain. Sean
Dougherty asked if this requirement will apply to residential structures as well. Staff indicated it would
research this issue. (Subsequent to the meeting, Staff determined that the ERPP process would not
apply to residential properties). The challenges of the 6” flooding depth requirement were discussed
and there was general consensus that the elimination of the criteria was appropriate. Ron Gonzales
noted that PFA staff has determined that its emergency rescue equipment is able to drive through up
to 15 inches of ponded (no velocity) water. Mike Gavin noted that evacuation of people from potential
flooding situations should be pursued where at all possible when compared with emergency rescues.
Presentation/Discussion on Draft Language
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson presented and reviewed the proposed code language (Attachment 1) based
on the new approach requiring that Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) require
procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance of when flood waters
will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. Marsha identified key
components of the ERPP process to include:
identification of flood risk
flood warning notification methods
procedures for notifying employees,
customers, etc.
description of the evacuation process
shelter-in-place considerations
evacuation routes
procedures for protection of utilities
signage for evacuation/shelter instructions
mandatory training and practice drills
post flood recovery measures
development triggers
relevant Code Sections
Mike Bello asked about the trigger associated with “change of occupancy” and indicated that
term requires more definition. Ron Gonzales provided information on how “change of
occupancy” applies with respect to the Fire Code. Mike suggested the term be clarified to
“Change of Building Code Occupancy” and the proposal was supported by the Working
Committee and Staff. John Hunt recommended clarifying 5 b. i. of the evacuation process to
state evacuation should occur a minimum of two hours “before” flood waters would impact the
site. It was agreed that Staff will review and revise the wording to better state this trigger point.
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
Mike Oberlander noted that the City already has established triggers when general notifications
to the public are issued for flooding events through LETA911 and news releases.
Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs)
Ken Sampley presented an overview of the ERPP process. In accordance with previous
discussions, Staff determined it appropriate to develop a template that incorporates and
addresses the proposed code language provisions in a format that could be completed by an
applicant with technical assistance from an engineering consultant experienced and qualified to
assess flood risk. Staff contracted with Ayres Associates to assist in the development and
preparation of the ERPP template, example and annual checklist. The intent is to simplify the
process as much as possible, but still ensure that the needed information is assembled,
evaluated and provided to establish a well thought out ERPP. Committee Members were
referred to the draft ERPP Template (Attachment 2) and draft ERPP Annual Checklist Form
(Attachment 3). Each section of the ERPP Template was presented and discussed. An example
completed ERPP template for a property along Vine Drive was also presented and discussed
with the Committee to provide an idea of how the document would be completed.
Committee members provided feedback on highlighting certain key portions of the template to
ensure clarity in determining which sections will require engineering assistance. Section 1
(Flood Risk Assessment) and Section 5 (Trigger points for evacuation process) were identified
as key elements that require technical and engineering expertise. John Hunt asked if an
applicant could identify and specify a very low threshold for evacuation to avoid having to do an
analysis specific to his/her property. Megan Bolin asked if LETA911 could be used. Staff noted
that LETA911 and news releases do not provide specific information for individual
properties/structures. Sean asked that the ERPP template be clarified to note that Section 6
(Procedures for Protecting Building from Damage) is optional if the applicant desires not to
develop a plan to protect his building equipment, computers, documents, etc.
Working Committee members asked what the estimated costs are for the ERPP process. Ken
noted that, based on the experiences of Ayres Associates, the initial costs are in the range of
$500 - $4,000 (depending on the complexity of the site) and annual costs to receive flood
warning messages are in the range of $0 - $1,000 depending on whether a consulting
meteorological firm is used or if building/property staff can be trained to perform the required
monitoring. In all likelihood, the initial costs are probably less than $2,000. It depends on how
much of the ERPP is prepared by the property owner/applicant and how much is contracted to
an engineering firm to complete.
Sean asked if there is a way to opt out of the ERPP requirement. He stated that the costs to
prepare the flood risk assessment, form, flood elevations and the on-going monitoring are more
than he can afford. Staff reiterated that the ERPP requirement does not apply to existing
structures and would only be triggered with a significant change to his property/structure. Sean
asked if the City could provide all of the requested technical and engineering information to
avoid costs to applicants. Jon Haukaas noted that if a property owner is improving, adding to or
redeveloping his property and structures, he/she should have the responsibility for preparation
of the required ERPP. Ken noted that the City should not be providing specific evacuation.
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
Greg Koch asked if structures associated with new development or redevelopment will have to
be elevated to meet the current Poudre River floodplain regulations (100 Year BFE plus 2 foot
freeboard), why is the ERPP still required? Marsha noted that the buildings may be elevated,
but the remainder of the property including access to the structure may not be. The ERPP plans
should have evacuation as the primary option. Shelter-in-place should only be a secondary
option give the flooding risk and potential extended flooding duration. Staff agreed that
additional review and refinement of the ERPP Template and ERPP annual checklist form are
needed to improve the clarity of the documents.
Recommendation of Working Committee
Susanne asked for comments on the revised approach by Working Committee members. Sean
Dougherty stated that the ERPP process seems reasonable, however he felt it would still be too
costly for his property. Sean stated that this approach is much better than the AIR approach.
He questions how it would apply to the property he currently owns, but sees the validity for
redevelopment of multiple parcels. Mike Bello stated that the ERPP approach seems well
thought out and logical. He stated that in order to initiate an addition, substantial improvement,
redevelopment or new development, the property owner should expect to have costs associated
with improving the property. Based on the estimated costs presented in the meeting, Mike
thought they were appropriate and not out of line considering other typical development costs.
Mike Oberlander suggested removing the references to 500 Year flooding events and
evacuation from the template. All agreed that was a great suggestion. One Committee Member
asked if the ERPP process was an overreaction to the potential flood risk on the Poudre River
and referred to flooding in Lincoln, Nebraska. Brad Anderson stated that the flooding risk along
the Poudre River must be acknowledged and that Lincoln has no higher flood risk than Fort
Collins. Brad believes the ERPP process seems logical and costs to engage a consulting
engineer to assist in their preparation should be minor. Greg Koch stated that the revised
approach is well thought out and not an unrealistic criteria to apply.
John Hunt stated that this seems like a more practical approach and avoids the significant
infrastructure costs that would have been associated with elevating emergency access roads.
John likes the performance based criteria and that it focuses on life safety. This is the least
burdensome on property owners. He did think additional insight is necessary in how business
owners (i.e. bars, restaurants) can implement evacuation procedures. Jon Haukaas stated the
City will help applicants and provide support, however the preparation and ownership of the site-
specific ERPPS should rest with the property/business owner. Megan Bolin expressed support
for the approach and noted that the costs seem reasonable. Dean Hoag expressed support for
the approach, but asked for additional guidance on how to implement the monitoring part of the
plan. He requested that Staff consider providing training to assist applicants. Dean also
questioned why this approach should also not be applied to all of the floodplains in Fort Collins.
POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
WORKING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2013
5:30 – 7:30 PM
Fort Collins Utilities Service Center
700 Wood Street (Training Room)
Fort Collins, Colorado
Public Outreach and Opportunities
Ken Sampley noted that the proposed draft language and floodplain regulation revisions are
scheduled for presentation to the Chamber of Commerce on February 8, 2013. The proposal
will also be presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) on February 20, 2013
and to the Water Board on February 21, 2013 for their review and recommendations. There is
also a potential presentation to the North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) pending
input from the NFCBA’s three Working Committee representatives.
City Council
Ken noted that the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations are scheduled for presentation at the
March 5, 2013 City Council Meeting.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:40 PM.
1
Ken Sampley
From: Greg Woods <greg@workspaceinnovations.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:45 PM
To: Ken Sampley; Brian Janonis; Lisa Rosintoski; John Stokes; Aislinn Kottwitz; Bennet Manvel;
Bruce Hendee; Darin Atteberry; Gerry Horak; Karen Weitkunat; Kelly Ohlson; Lisa Poppaw;
Mike Beckstead; Sarah Kane; Wade Troxell; Bill Greenlee (bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com);
Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com); Charlie Mesercian (ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean
Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com); Megan Greer; Michael
Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil
McCaffrey (neil@bkctr.com); Ron Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com); Sean Dougherty
(sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Ken,
Thank you for your follow up. It is greatly appreciated.
The Board of the NFCBA met yesterday regarding the Poudre River Floodplain regulations that Staff will be presenting to
City Council. We received valuable feedback from the three members of the NFCBA that are on the Working Committee,
Sean Dougherty, Michael Bello, and Dean Hoag. At this point we don’t feel that it is necessary to have you present to
our entire organization. The Board did ask me to e‐mail you our thoughts on the current proposal.
Overall, the sentiment of our Board was that Staff and the Working Committee had done some great work over the past
many months, and that the proposal going forward to City Council was much improved over where the discussion
began. The Board of the NFCBA was in support of the proposal going forward to City Council with a few concerns and
questions:
‐ Liability: We question the legal liability of the business that would complete the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) in
the case of a flood. While we believe that it is a good idea for business owners to have a plan in place, we question
what would happen in case of a flood. For example:
o A business declares that a certain individual is the person responsible. That person, for whatever reason,
leaves the business.
o A flood event happens, and that person is no longer there.
o Someone isn’t evacuated according to this plan and is either hurt or killed.
o What is the liability? Who is liable?
o And, was/is the person designated as the person responsible trained in how to deal with a flood event and
what to do to should one occur? Who would do this training? At what cost?
‐ Owner or tenant: It was unclear as to who would be responsible for filling out, monitoring, and carrying out the
ERP. Under the proposed plan we believe that the building owner would be responsible. However, it would not be
uncommon for the building owner to not be involved with the building on a day to day basis should it be
leased. Would every tenant in the facility have to complete and implement an ERP? Would every tenant then have
to have a responsible individual for their business?
‐ Ongoing financial and time commitment: The upfront cost of hiring an engineer is a bit unclear, with a stated range
of $500‐$4,000 to fill out the ERP. It also is unclear as to the yearly costs associated to the business to monitor the
river, etc. 24/7. Would the City be willing to offer grants of some sort to offset these ongoing costs?
‐ Finally, we trust that once this issue goes through Council discussion and implementation that the Poudre River
Floodplain discussion will be complete for many, many years to come.
We appreciate all of the energy and time that you and the rest of the Staff put into this process, and we appreciate you
involving our organization throughout. We will be interested to see where the proposal goes from here.
Thanks Ken. We will be sure to stay in touch with you.
ATTACHMENT 6
2
Greg Woods
Secretary
NFCBA
www.nfcba.org
From: Ken Sampley [mailto:KSampley@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Greg Woods
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Greg,
I received valuable feedback and comments from Friday’s Chamber of Commerce meeting and discussion on the updated
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations code language revisions and anticipate some clarifications and refinements to the
process based on the input. Prior to the meeting you indicated that a presentation to the NFCBA may not be needed. I
am still available to meet with the NFCBA, if requested, to present and discuss the proposed code language revisions. I
will be out of the office this Thursday and Friday (Feb. 14th and 15th). Please let me know.
Thanks for your assistance and consideration.
Respectfully,
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager
City of Fort Collins -- Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 224-6021
Work Cell Phone: (970) 658-0295
Email: ksampley@fcgov.com
From: Ken Sampley
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:28 PM
To: 'Greg Woods'
Cc: Bill Greenlee (bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com); Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com); Charlie Mesercian
(ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com); Megan Greer; Michael
Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil McCaffrey (neil@bkctr.com); Ron
Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com); Sean Dougherty (sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Greg,
That sounds like a good plan. Thanks for your assistance and consideration!
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager
City of Fort Collins -- Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 224-6021
Work Cell Phone: (970) 658-0295
Email: ksampley@fcgov.com
From: Greg Woods [mailto:greg@workspaceinnovations.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:14 PM
To: Ken Sampley
Cc: Bill Greenlee (bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com); Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com); Charlie Mesercian
(ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com); Megan Greer; Michael
Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil McCaffrey (neil@bkctr.com); Ron
3
Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com); Sean Dougherty (sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Hi Ken,
Thanks for checking back in with me.
Several members of the NFCBA Board talked after our regular meeting on Wednesday and here’s what we decided:
‐ Dean, Sean, and Michael all plan on being at the Working Committee meeting on Monday
‐ On Tuesday, the three of them will let the rest of the NFCBA Board members know what their recommendation is as
far as having you present to the entire group (or any other actions they think we should take).
So, we’ll be back in touch with you the first part of next week.
Thanks for following up!
Greg Woods
Secretary
NFCBA
www.nfcba.org
cc NFCBA Board of Directors
From: Ken Sampley [mailto:KSampley@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:04 PM
To: Greg Woods
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Greg,
Just thought I would check to see if there is a date and time that works for the NFCBA to present and discuss the
proposed Poudre River Floodplain code language revisions, their applicability to the north College area, and the project
status and upcoming meetings.
Thank you,
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager
City of Fort Collins -- Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 224-6021
Work Cell Phone: (970) 658-0295
Email: ksampley@fcgov.com
From: Ken Sampley
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:17 AM
To: 'Greg Woods'
Cc: Jon Haukaas; Brian Janonis; Bill Greenlee (bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com); Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com);
Charlie Mesercian (ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com);
Megan Greer; Michael Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil McCaffrey
(neil@bkctr.com); Ron Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com); Sean Dougherty (sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Greg,
Thank you for your consideration. I am hoping that Dean, Sean and perhaps Michael will be able to attend next Monday’s
Working Committee meeting. The attachments I sent to you and the Working Committee provide updates on other
4
associate items including the Poudre River Downtown Core project and the in-progress RiskMAP process that will
eventually result in updated floodplain mapping for the Poudre River throughout Fort Collins. Future construction of the
Poudre River Downtown Core project will eliminate flood overtopping of College Avenue and will significantly reduce the
100-Year floodplain in the College / Vine area. Revising the proposed floodplain revisions to focus on the emergency
response and preparedness plans (ERPPs) and eliminate the previously-proposed 6” flooding depth criteria for
emergency access roads will result in improved life safety while dramatically reducing potential financial impacts.
I look forward to meeting with the NFCBA to discuss the proposed code language revisions and their application to the
north College area.
Respectfully,
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager
City of Fort Collins -- Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 224-6021
Work Cell Phone: (970) 658-0295
Email: ksampley@fcgov.com
From: Greg Woods [mailto:greg@workspaceinnovations.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Ken Sampley
Cc: Jon Haukaas; Brian Janonis; Bill Greenlee (bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com); Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com);
Charlie Mesercian (ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com);
Megan Greer; Michael Bello (mbello10@comcast.net); Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil McCaffrey
(neil@bkctr.com); Ron Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com); Sean Dougherty (sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Ken,
Thank you very much for getting back with me so quickly.
I forwarded your message to the Board of the NFCBA. We will talk about it and get back with you as to whether we can
1) squeeze you in at our February meeting or 2) plan to hold a special meeting.
I will get back with you as soon as I can with our thoughts.
Thanks again.
Greg Woods
Secretary
NFCBA
www.nfcba.org
From: Ken Sampley [mailto:KSampley@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:04 PM
To: Greg Woods
Cc: Jon Haukaas; Brian Janonis
Subject: RE: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Greg,
I left you a telephone voice message earlier this afternoon. I am also trying to reach Ann Hutchison with the Fort Collins
Chamber of Commerce. I apologize for the delay in updates regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. I am
available to meet with the NFCBA to present the latest information on the effort. As noted, our primary outreach effort has
been with the Working Committee (which includes members of the NFCBA), however I agree with you that the proposed
5
revisions should be presented to the NFCBA. I believe the updated approach more specifically addresses concerns
voiced previously regarding financial impacts associated with the elevation of fire apparatus (emergency access) roads.
As background, in accordance with discussions at the June 25, 2012 Working Committee meeting, staffs from the City
and Poudre Fire Authority (PEA) were tasked with developing the final code language to incorporate proposed revisions to
the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations into the City Code for the City of Fort Collins. In his role as NFCBA
representative, Sean Dougherty indicated that the revisions as proposed would likely receive the support and
endorsement of the NFCBA. The proposed revisions were then to be presented to City Council for consideration and
action. The draft code language included requirements for fire apparatus(emergency access) roads and development of
Emergency Response Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) for properties within the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain.
During the Staff process to finalize the code language, it was determined that feasibility issues associated with the
emergency access road criteria necessitated revisions to the approach. The criteria requiring that new fire apparatus
(emergency access) roads not be subjected to more than 6” of flooding depth during the 100 Year storm presented
practical, physical and financial challenges. Therefore, the proposed approach was changed to create a “performance-
based” regulation that places more emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation and eliminates the
previous proposal to limit flooding depth on the access roads. As a result, there are changes to the proposed Emergency
Response Preparedness Plan (ERPP) requirements. In order to demonstrate how the process will work, Staff contracted
with Ayres Associates to prepare the following documents:
1. A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation of
site-specific ERRP’s;
2. A sample ERPP for a property within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain situated along Vine Drive; and,
3. A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
A Working Committee meeting is scheduled as outlined below to present and review the proposed code language and
ERPP template, example and checklist form:
What: Poudre River Floodplain Regulations — Working Committee
Where: City of Fort Collins -- Utility Service Center (USC)
700 Wood Street
Training Room
Date: Monday, February 4, 2013
Time: 5:30 — 7:30 PM (A light dinner will be provided at 5:00 PM)
Attached to this email are the following electronic documents that were provided by email to the Working Committee
members and interested parties on Friday (Jan. 25th):
Save The Poudre Letter Response – 01_23_13
Letter to PRF Regulations Working Committee – 01_23_13
Attachment 1 – Final Draft Summary (Track Changes Version) of Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Changes
01-23-13
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations – Final Draft 06 25 12 Working Committee Meeting Summary
I understand the Feb. 27th NFCBA meeting agenda is full. I am available to attend a special meeting date for the NFCBA
and would appreciate the opportunity to present what I believe will be an approach that the NFCBA can support and
endorse.
If there are questions, or if additional information is needed, or to discuss in more detail, please contact me using the
information below.
Respectfully,
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager
City of Fort Collins -- Utilities
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 224-6021
Work Cell Phone: (970) 658-0295
Email: ksampley@fcgov.com
6
From: Greg Woods [mailto:greg@workspaceinnovations.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Ken Sampley
Cc: Brian Janonis; Lisa Rosintoski; John Stokes; Aislinn Kottwitz; Bennet Manvel; Bruce Hendee; Darin Atteberry; Gerry
Horak; Karen Weitkunat; Kelly Ohlson; Lisa Poppaw; Mike Beckstead; Sarah Kane; Wade Troxell; Bill Greenlee
(bgreenlee@jaxmercantile.com); Bill See (bill@heathconstruction.com); Charlie Mesercian (ftctrucks@yahoo.com); Dean
Hoag (dhoag2000@aol.com); Don Butler (jhockr5141@gmail.com); Megan Greer; Michael Bello (mbello10@comcast.net);
Michael Bello (michael.bello@thecpigroup.net); Neil McCaffrey (neil@bkctr.com); Ron Lautzenheiser (rklautz@msn.com);
Sean Dougherty (sean@rmfa.com)
Subject: Poudre River Floodplain - Concerns and Meeting Request
Importance: High
Ken,
We saw on the City Council’s 6‐Month Planning Calendar that the Poudre River Floodplain regulations are once again on
the schedule. If I’m not mistaken, it was just added to the schedule in the past week or so.
The Board of the NFCBA is concerned that, after months of discussion with the Working Committee, that this issue is
heading to a regular session in March before it ever goes to another work session. Further, City Staff has not reached
out to our organization in many, many months to update us. Yes, a couple members of the NFCBA are on the working
committee, but that isn’t the same as reaching out to our entire membership. Many of our members will be affected by
any changes to the Poudre River Floodplain regulations, and we would like to be informed as to what City Staff is
recommending to City Council at the regular meeting in March.
Unfortunately, we have a full agenda already for our February 27th meeting. If we would have known that City Staff was
presenting to City Council on this issue earlier, we most certainly would have reached out to you before this.
Thus, we would like to request the following:
‐ City Staff presents their recommendations to the NFCBA at our regular meeting on March 27th IF CITY COUNCIL WILL
NOT TAKE ACTION IN FEBRUARY
OR
‐ If City Council IS taking action in March before our March 27th meeting, we would like to request a special meeting
date that City Staff can present their recommendations to our members BEFORE it goes before City Council.
Please let us know as soon as possible as to which option is best for our members to be informed. As you know, this
issue is very important to our organization
Thanks Ken.
Greg Woods
Secretary
NFCBA
www.nfcba.org
cc. NFCBA Board of Directors
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 9
Page 2 of 2
Utilities Executive Director
City of electric. stormwater. wastewater. water
Fort CoLLins 700 Wood St.
970.224.6003 TDD
utilities @fcgov.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 Tern 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:
I. 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
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 10
Ft°oLLins
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 he 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 ripwian edge development should be the exception, not the rule, and that 50 to
100 years from now a natural Poudre River would he 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 he prepared to address the following questions:
I. 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.
Page 2 of 2
1
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
Potential Revisions
City Council Meeting
March 18, 2013
Jon Haukaas, P.E.
Water Engineering Field
Operations Manager
Brian Varrella, P.E., CFM
Floodplain Administrator
Ken Sampley, P.E.
Stormwater and Floodplain
Program Manager
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, CFM
Floodplain Administrator
ATTACHMENT 11
2
Purpose of Poudre River
Floodplain Regulations Review
• Final component of
SW Repurposing
• Focuses on whether
revisions are needed to
better address:
– life safety
– reduced property
damage
• Uses a sustainable
approach
3
Purpose of Poudre River
Floodplain Regulations Review
CURRENT REGULATIONS
– No new structures in the100-Year Floodway
– No new residential or mixed-use structures
in the 100-Year Floodplain Fringe
– Non-residential structures allowed in 100-
Year Floodplain fringe (if meet freeboard)
– No critical facilities in the 100-Year
floodplain
4
October 25 2011 Council Work Session
Council direction to Staff:
– “Scalable” AIR regulation
– Poudre Fire Authority (PFA)
– Consistent Summary Format
– Notification Process
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
5
ADVERSE IMPACT REVIEW (AIR)
Recommended to discontinue the development
of a scalable Adverse Impact Review (AIR)
regulation for the Poudre River because:
1. Poudre River RiskMAP
2. Poudre River Downtown Core
Improvements
3. Link-N-Greens area CLOMR/ LOMR
process
4. Floodway Surcharge Analysis
5. Mulberry Corridor / GMA
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AND PREPAREDNESS PLAN (ERPP)
A “performance-based” regulation requiring
procedures be established for evacuation
a minimum of two hours in advance of when
flood waters will impact the site and/or any
portion of the designated evacuation routes.
Emphasis on life safety through
advance warning and evacuation
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
7
REVISE CODE LANGUAGE
Require a site-specific Emergency Response and
Preparedness Plan (ERPP) be prepared,
implemented and maintained for allowable:
– Additions
– Substantial improvements
– Change of Occupancy
– Redevelopment and/or
– New development
within the 100-Year floodplain.
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
8
How ERRP works with existing FP Regs
– Retains existing floodplain regulations that
reduce potential property damage
– Establishes new ERPP criteria that provides
increased focus on life safety through
evacuation in advance of flooding.
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
9
• Assessment of Flood Risk
• Flood Warning
Notifications
• Responsible Parties
• Notification of Employees
• Description of Procedures
– Evacuation
– Shelter-in-Place
(Secondary only)
• Procedures for Protecting
Buildings from Damage
• Evacuation Route and
Shelter-in-place Signage
• Mandatory Training and
Practice Drills
• Post Flood Recovery
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
ERPP Code Language
10
Emergency
Response and
Preparedness Plan
(ERPP)
Code Language
(Attachment 1)
Template / Form
(Attachment 2)
Annual Checklist Form
(Attachment 3)
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
Floodplain Regulations Review
11
QUESTIONS
Poudre River Floodplain Regulations
ORDINANCE NO. 048, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN
WHEREAS, requirements and restrictions specific to development and related activities in
the Poudre River floodplain are set forth in Division 4 of Article II of Chapter 10 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, after thorough investigation, public outreach, and consideration of various
options and approaches, City staff has identified certain changes to the existing provisions regarding
the Poudre River floodplain in order to better address foreseeable flooding risks so as to improve
life safety through advance warning and evacuation measures; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the proposed revisions to the Natural Resources Advisory Board
(“NRAB”) at its regular meeting on February 20, 2013, and the NRAB discussed its prior
recommendation that the City Council revise the floodplain regulations to not allow any new
structures in the one-hundred-year floodplain of the Poudre River, but chose not to make a formal
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the proposed revisions to the Water Board (the “Board”) at its
regular meeting on February 21, 2013, and the Board voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed revisions, while also recommending that the City Council consider revising
the floodplain regulations to not allow any new structures in the one-hundred-year floodplain of the
Poudre River; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interests of the City to approve
the changes so as to better protect life safety in the Poudre River floodplain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 10-16 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of the following new definitions, to read in their entirety as follows:
Change of occupancy shall mean a change of occupancy as defined in Chapter 5, if
such change of occupancy results in an increase in the number of occupants..
Dry public road shall mean a public street at the intersection of a proposed driveway
or access road where the surface of the pavement is at an elevation above the base
flood elevation.
Emergency response and preparedness plan shall mean a plan, and related
preparations and systems, that are intended to provide both a reasonable measure of
preparedness for flooding and other emergencies that may occur in conjunction with
flooding, and a reasonable ability to respond to such circumstances so as to avoid
and minimize potential harm to persons or property, as described in §10-48.
Evacuation shall mean emergency egress to allow safe passage from a structure to
dry ground in the regulatory flood event.
Shelter-in-place shall mean onsite provision of refuge from floodwaters and related
hazards to allow continued occupation of a structure in the event that circumstances
preclude safe evacuation in the regulatory flood event or more frequent flood events.
Section 2. That Section 10-27(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(c) The following information is also required for a floodplain use permit:
. . .
(4) Specifications for building construction and materials, filling, dredging,
grading, channel improvements and changes, storage of materials, water supply and
sanitary facilities; and
(5) Detailed information documenting compliance with any specific requirements
applicable to the proposed development or activity pursuant to this Article.; and
(6) An emergency response and preparedness plan, if required pursuant to this
Article, provided, however, that this requirement shall be considered a floodplain use
permit condition to be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, pursuant
to §10-27(g).
Section 3. That Section 10-27(e)(6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(e) When reviewing the application for a floodplain use permit, the Utilities
Executive Director shall determine which portions of any flood hazard areas are
affected by the particular development request and then shall apply the provisions
of this Article as applicable. The Utilities Executive Director also shall determine
whether the proposed construction or development is consistent with the need to
-2-
minimize flood damage and meets the intent of this Article after considering the
following factors:
. . .
(6) Whether the proposed use is for human occupancy, and, if so, the impacts to
human safety and the extent to which emergency response and preparedness and
other measures are required and have been assured in order to reduce safety risk;
. . .
Section 4. That Section 10-27(g) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(g) If the Utilities Executive Director determines that the application meets the
purposes and requirements of this Article, the Utilities Executive Directorhe or she
shall issue the permit and may attach such conditions as deemedhe or she deems
necessary to further the purposes of this Article or to ensure compliance with the
same. The Utilities Executive Director may request that the City building official
condition the release of a certificate of occupancy or other final approval upon
submission of final documentation of compliance with conditions, as appropriate.
Section 5. That a new Section 10-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
added, to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 10-48. Emergency planning and preparedness.
For any structure or portion of structure required under this Article to submit an
emergency response and preparedness plan, the following emergency planning and
preparedness requirements shall apply:
(1) An emergency response and preparedness plan shall include the following,
together with such additional provisions as may be appropriate in light of the
particular circumstances associated with the structure or activity to which the plan
applies:
a. A flood risk assessment that, at a minimum, includes:
1. The source, flood frequency, expected duration, timing, and
depth of flood impacts that impact the structure, its occupants or
activity in the structure;
2. The expected impact on activities and operations;
3. Identification of persons potentially impacted; and
-3-
4. The impact of flooding on evacuation routes and emergency
vehicle access to the site.
b. A description of the method of receipt of flood warning;
c. Identification and assignment of personnel to implement the plan;
d. Procedures for notification of employees, customers, and other
building occupants, including:
1. Contact information;
2. Redundant methods of notification;
3. Safeguards to ensure all employees received the notification;
and
4. General content of the notices to be provided;
e. A description of procedures for both evacuation and shelter-in-place
of building occupants, including:
1. Method and responsibility for determination of appropriate
response, with evacuation generally considered the primary response,
and shelter-in-place is considered a secondary response;
2. Description of evacuation process, including:
a) Timing of opportunity to evacuate requiring a
minimum of two (2) hours of lead-time from when flood
waters would impact the site or any portion of the designated
evacuation routes;
b) Map and directions with evacuation routes including,
but not limited to, exits from occupied structures and from
occupied structures to a dry public road, specifically
identifying any approved fire apparatus access roads or other
emergency access routes;
c) Mode of evacuation – walking, car, and/or provided
transportation; and
d) Alternative routes for evacuation when preferred
routes are washed out or otherwise impassable;
3. A description of the shelter-in-place, including:
a) Description of safe on-site areas for shelter-in-place
occupation;
b) Development and maintenance of emergency
preparedness kit containing supplies for three days including
such items as food, water, blankets, flashlights, National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration weather
radios, batteries; and
c) A communication plan for informing emergency
contacts of those sheltered-in-place;
-4-
f. Procedures for protecting the building from damage or hazardous
conditions, including:
1. Plan for shut down of utilities and equipment;
2. Relocation of computers, documents, or other important
resources or materials to higher areas; and
3. Required or other appropriate floodproofing measures;
g. A process for distribution and posting of plan and evacuation routes
and shelter-in-place instructions;
h. A description of mandatory training and practice drills, including:
1. Procedures for training all employees, including future new
employees;
2. Annual practice drills implementing the plan during the first
three months of each calendar year; and
3. Documentation of practice drills and identified areas for
improvement;
i. A description of post-flood recovery measures, including:
1. Procedures for notification to employees and, if applicable,
the public, of when it is safe to return; and
2. Site clean-up procedures; and
j. Designation of a person responsible for operation of the occupied
facility for which the plan is required, who shall be responsible to the City
for completion of the specific requirements set forth in this §10-48.
(2) Documentation of any required emergency response and preparedness plan
and of practice drills and related process improvements shall be maintained on file
and shall be available at the facility to which the plan pertains for inspection by the
Utilities Executive Director upon request.
(3) The person designated as responsible for any required emergency response
and preparedness plan under Subsection 10-48(1)(j) shall review the plan during the
first quarter of each calendar year, and shall submit documentation of each annual
review to the Utilities Executive Director on a form satisfactory to the Utilities
Executive Director during the first quarter of each calendar year.
Section 4. That Section 10-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (10), to read as follows:
-5-
Sec. 10-71. Specific standards for development in Poudre River floodway.
. . .
(10) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
nonresidential or mixed-use structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory
structure, shall be subject to the emergency planning and preparedness requirements
of §10-48.
Section 6. That Section 10-76 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (9), to read as follows:
Sec. 10-76. Specific standards for nonresidential development in Poudre
River flood fringe.
. . .
(9) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory structure, shall be subject
to the emergency planning and preparedness requirements of §10-48.
Section 7. That Section 10-77 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (8), to read as follows:
Sec. 10-77. Specific standards for mixed-use development in Poudre River
flood fringe.
. . .
(8) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory structure, shall be subject
to the emergency planning and preparedness requirements of §10-48.
Section 8. That this Ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 2013.
-6-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to `be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-7-
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Susie Gordon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2013, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Establish a Disposable Bag Fee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its November 27, 2012 work session, Council requested staff draft an ordinance that would apply a fee on single-use
grocery shopping bags. An ordinance is proposed that establishes a 10-cent fee on both plastic bags and paper sacks
that are used in the community’s grocery (food) stores.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Like many communities around the country and throughout the world, people in Fort Collins have expressed concerns
about shopping bags that are designed to be used once before they are thrown away. At its November 27, 2012 Work
Session, City Council reviewed options for decreasing the amount of disposable shopping bags that are used in Fort
Collins. In preparation, staff prepared a Triple Bottom Line Analysis of several approaches to reduce single-use bags
including education and outreach, a ban, assessing a fee or tax, and requiring credit or reimbursement when customer
brings their own bags. After discussing the information, City Council requested that staff develop an ordinance that
would apply a fee on single-use grocery shopping bags (Attachment 2). Council also requested that staff continue to
increase awareness and outreach regarding plastic bags, and to look for ways to improve the availability of recycling
for plastic “film” bags in Fort Collins.
A number of US communities have enacted a fee on plastic and paper bags including:
• Washington DC
• Basalt, CO
• Boulder, CO
• Montgomery County, MD
In Fort Collins, negative impacts from single-use bags include the following:
• Contributing to the volume of discarded material that enters landfills
• Climate change: a source of 772 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emitted from Fort Collins
• Littering, including in City natural areas and stormwater conveyances
• Reduction in value of single-stream recyclables (plastic bags are considered contamination when mixed with
single stream items such as paper, cans and bottles)
The proposed ordinance assesses a fee to help offset these impacts. Furthermore, community goals and values
support action to decrease waste by reducing it at the source, which is expressed in City Plan, Principle ENV 14:
The City will apply the US Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated “hierarchy” of waste
management to help protect all environmental resources, including air, soil, and water, using source
reduction as the primary approach, followed in order by: reuse; recycling/composting; energy recovery
using emerging pollution-free technology; and, landfill disposal (where methane gas capture is
employed), as a final resort.
Adopting a fee on bags that motivates shoppers to use fewer plastic or paper bags is expected to have the following
results:
• Encourage source reduction and re-use, the most effective actions that can be taken to manage the waste
stream (by bringing a durable carryout bag with them to stores for their purchases, shoppers are practicing
both of these important principles)
• Serve as a “gateway habit”, reinforcing people’s willingness to expand re-use efforts to other products
• Increase the Fort Collins community’s ability to meet its goal of diverting 50% of trash from landfill disposal
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 7
• Help meet the community’s goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Meet the public’s interest in recovering even more materials that continue to be discarded
• Reduce “life-cycle” impacts of single use bags – which include impacts from material extraction to production
and disposal of plastic bag use by transitioning to a bag type that has lower life cycle impacts
• Reduce stray litter and pollution in the community, and globally, including plastic bags in trees and waterways
Proposed Ordinance Details
The proposed Ordinance charges a 10-cent fee on both plastic bags and paper sacks used in the community’s grocery
(food) stores. Nationwide, grocery stores generate 60% of disposable bags (http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/
05152012Agenda/AgendaFINALWeb.pdf). The Ordinance defines grocery stores as retail establishments located in
city limits that operate year-round and sell a full line of food stuffs. The definition does not include temporary vendors
or vendors for whom food sales represents less than 2% of gross profit.
Following trends set in other communities that have adopted bag fees, the proposed ordinance splits the bag-fee
revenue between the City (60%) and the grocery stores (40%).
Money (60% of fee) would be used by the City to pay for activities that include:
• provide reusable carryout bags to residents and visitors;
• educate residents, businesses, and visitors about the impact of disposable bags on the city’s environmental
health, the importance of reducing the number of single-use carryout bags entering the waste stream, and the
expenses associated with mitigating the effects of single-use bags on the city’s drainage system,
transportation system, wildlife, and environment;
• fund programs and infrastructure that allow the Fort Collins community to reduce waste associated with
disposable bags;
• cover City’s costs to collect, manage fees and administer new programs aimed at reducing consumption of
single-use bags; and
• purchase and install equipment designed to minimize bag pollution, including recycling containers and waste
receptacles associated with activities that reduce trash associated with disposable bags; and, mitigate the
effects of disposable bags on the city’s drainage system, transportation system, wildlife, and environment.
Groceries would be able to retain 40% of the disposable bag fees to:
• offset new administrative costs;
• provide educational information and signage about the disposable bag fee to customers;
• train staff in the implementation, collection, and administration of the fee;
• collect, account for and remit the fee to the City; develop and display informational signage to inform
consumers about the fee, encourage the use of reusable bags, promote recycling of plastic bags; and,
improve infrastructure to increase plastic bag recycling;
• Sell low-cost reusable bags to customers to use; and
• Provide alternative containers for customers who use federal or state food stamps, since these funds may not
be applied to the purchase of carry-out bags.
The Ordinance under consideration implements the fee starting as early as October 1, 2013. This allows six months
following enactment of the Ordinance for grocery retailers and City staff to make the necessary financial, accounting,
and education and outreach preparations.
To ensure grocery stores were collecting the 10-cent per bag fee, City sales tax staff will monitor a new remittance
that would be submitted by retailers. If a lack of compliance with the Ordinance is suspected, Finance Department
auditors will be authorized to conduct an audit, much as they are authorized to conduct sales tax audits of Fort Collins
retailers. The Ordinance defines non-compliance by food stores with any provision of the Ordinance as a civil
infraction.
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 7
Anticipated Effectiveness of Fee
In 2009, Washington DC was the first municipality in the country to implement a fee (5 cents per bag) on disposable
plastic and paper bags. This initiative demonstrated significant reduction in disposable bag use. After the first year,
Washingtonians reduced disposable bag use from 270 million in 2009 to about 55 million in 2010, a reduction of 80
percent (Washington Post, “District Businesses Not Harmed by Bag Tax”). The Alice Ferguson Foundation conducted
a survey one year after implementation of Washington DC’s bag fee ordinance to measure public perceptions and
effects on businesses (http://fergusonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AFF-DC-Research-Memo-2-15-
11.pdf). The survey showed that:
• 75% of Washington residents reported a reduction in their bag usage
• a majority of businesses reported that their bag consumption dropped at least 50%
• 78% of businesses had a neutral or positive response when asked how the bag fee was impacting their
business.
There are two other compelling examples of the impact of modest fees on disposable bag use. In 2002, Ireland
implemented a 15-Euro-cent tax (approximately 20 US cents) on plastic bags and found that plastic bag consumption
decreased 90% in the first year after the policy was enacted (Environment California “Leading the Way Toward a Clean
Ocean” p.14). In 2007, IKEA became the first major retailer in the United States to charge a fee; 5 cents for disposable
plastic bags and 59 cents for reusable bags. IKEA has witnessed a 95% drop in disposable plastic bag use at the
store (County of Los Angeles, California “An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County” p.43).
In Fort Collins, a fee on bags may have the effect of changing shoppers’ selection at grocery stores for the type of sack
they use to hold their purchases, from a single-use plastic or paper bag to a durable carry-out bag that can be used
multiple times. Based on experiences in communities around the world, staff estimates reduced consumption of single-
use bags by 50% in the first year, as people become accustomed to bringing their own durable bag with them to
grocery stores. In the second year another estimated 50% reduction is anticipated and another 50% reduction will
occur in the third year.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A 10-cent per bag fee in Fort Collins will create a new income stream. A study conducted for the City of Boulder in
2012 put the estimated number of bags affected by a fee on disposable grocery store bags at 145 per capita each
year, based on information about bag use from large, medium, and small grocery stores and convenience (food) stores
in Boulder. Applying this per capita amount to our population suggests about 22 million disposable bags would be
covered by a fee in Fort Collins. A 10-cent/bag fee would create a fund of nearly $1 million in the first full year of
implementation.
Budget Year 2013 (Oct-Dec)
(50% reduction)
2014
(50% reduction
year-to-year)
2015
(50% reduction
year-to-year)
2016
(50% reduction year-to-
year)
Estimated # disposable
bags affected by fee
2.7 million
1/8 of 22 million bags
used throughout year)
9.8 million 5.0 million 2.5 million
Fees remitted to City
(60% of fee) $164,571 $586,188 $ 298,278 $151,777
Fees remitted to grocery
stores $109714 $390,792 $198,852 $101,184
TOTAL $274,286 $976,980 $497,130 $252,961
Using Boulder’s per capita estimate as a proxy for Fort Collins, if each resident were to use 145 disposable bags per
year to hold grocery shopping purchases instead of switching to a durable reusable bag, a 10-cent/bag fee would cost
each resident $14.50 annually.
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 7
Grocery stores stand to save money when a fee is imposed on disposable bags because they would no longer have
to automatically provide customers with a bag that costs in the range of 2 cents to 5 cents each. Although bag
manufacturers and retailers have not been willing to publicize exact numbers, savings may be roughly estimated at
several thousands of dollars per month for each of the major grocery stores in Fort Collins. The option for grocers to
begin charging for each bag can be seen to represent a market-based solution; customers may either choose to buy
the bag or decline it and either go without, or bring their own. Administration of fee collection may add to a grocery
store’s operating costs, but those additional costs will be offsets by the revenue from the fee.
The benefits of having fewer disposable bags to clean up in public areas will save the City money; however, staff was
not able to quantify the costs savings to overall litter programs from a reduced number of disposable bags. Having
fewer disposable bags will also save money at recycling plants in Denver and will improve their profitability. From the
Finance Department’s perspective, a new .25 FTE clerk/accountant would be needed to carry out tasks for collecting
a fee on grocery sacks, including entering filings from grocery stores as journal entries and copying remittance slips
for Finance Department reports, and auditing. Another new .5 FTE environmental education specialist/planner would
be needed to manage the use of the funds and implement new programs on which to spend fee revenues (education
and outreach activities, purchase and distribution of durable bags to citizens, enhancement to local recycling
opportunities for bags, etc.).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An Ordinance restricting disposable bags will have a small but measurable impact on the community’s waste stream.
According to Brendle Group, a local consulting firm hired by the City to evaluate options for reducing consumption of
single-use bags, an estimated 220 tons/year of plastic bags from Fort Collins are sent to landfills for disposal, which
represents .2% of the waste stream that Fort Collins sends for landfill disposal. (No data were available for disposable
paper bags.) Over a three-year period of October 2013 through 2016, it is estimated that amount of disposable bags
used in community Food Stores would be reduced by 60% compared to business as usual, thereby diverting a
potential 709 tons of waste (281 tons/year).
Both plastic and paper single-use bags cause other types of environmental damage. Plastic is very visibly a problem
in maritime states and communities, where a serious consequence of plastic bag pollution is lethal harm to marine life
that ingests bags or get tangled in them, and plastic litter can float around and wash onto shores. For landlocked Fort
Collins, plastic bag litter may disappear with the wind or be broken down by sunlight and weather into smaller pieces.
These bits of plastic are still pollutants, even if they don’t resemble the bags they started off as; it is likely that studies
understate the environmental issues and magnitude of problems caused by plastic particulates.
On the other hand, critics of restrictions on bags will point out that replacement bags, such as cotton fabric bags, create
their own carbon footprint and may not be environmentally sustainable because of reliance on fertilizer, pesticides,
and herbicides.
While plastic “film” bags and paper shopping bags are both recyclable, there is insufficient data on bag consumption
and recycling quantities to estimate their current recycling rate in Fort Collins. There are at least 19 sites where plastic
bags are accepted for recycling, including all grocery stores in town. Paper bags are recyclable at public drop-off
locations as well as in the single-stream recycling offered in curbside collection programs throughout Fort Collins.
The new tons of avoided bag usage per year that are estimated to occur from passage of the Ordinance will reduce
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 772 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year, compared
to business as usual.
SOCIAL IMPACT
In October, 2012, the City contracted a consulting firm, Brendle Group, to conduct a triple bottom line evaluation of
policy choices available to the City for restricting carry-out bags in Fort Collins. The report
(http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/triple-bottom-line-evaluation-plastic-bag-policy-options-10-2012.pdf?1351696764)
describes a number of social impacts to the community that would result from establishing fees on carry-out bags.
March 18, 2013 -5- ITEM 7
Among the positive social impacts are:
• Taking action against the use of disposable bags represents progressive environmental sustainability,
contributing to the perception of Fort Collins as a sustainable community
• Using reusable bags is a relatively easy and low-cost practice for consumers to adopt and may lead to other
choices to counteract a disposable, throw-away culture of consumerism
• Alternatives to single-use bags are readily available and relatively easy to use
• Several grocers in Fort Collins have adopted similar policies voluntarily without noticing fewer numbers of
customers
• When compared to an outright ban on bags, a fee can be seen to retain shoppers’ choice; those who choose
single-use bags can pay for them while shoppers who decline to use a bag or bring their own bag do not pay
the fee
• Fewer disposable bags will reduce stray litter, such as bags caught in trees or floating in waterways, and
improve the community’s aesthetics.
Some of the “cons” of establishing a fee on disposable bags include:
• Regulating consumer choice
• Less availability of single-use bags for common second uses such as trash can lining and picking up pet waste
• Seen as a regressive measure that may affect low-income populations in a negative way
• May drive grocery shoppers to out-of-town stores (not enough evidence to support or deny this point; would
work best for neighboring communities to implement fees at the same time to avoid this concern)
• Lack of national Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation means costs and responsibilities fall to
local agencies to create/enforce restrictions on disposables such as carry-out bags; shifts the burden of litter
and pollution cleanup from the polluting industry onto the consumer of the bags
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its November 19, 2012 meeting, the Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) recommended that Council adopt an
ordinance that would significantly reduce plastic bags. The motion passed 4-3; three AQAB members dissented
because they felt the motion was not strong enough; they wanted plastic bags banned.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
During fall of 2012, meetings were held with members of the trash/recycling hauling industry, Chamber of Commerce
members and staff, and a variety of City staff to discuss alternatives to reduce single use shopping bags, including
the implications of a fee on disposable bags. Newspaper articles and columns, television bulletins, and spotlights on
City webpages and utility bill inserts were published, and a public Open House was conducted on November 8, 2012,
to introduce proposals to the community. Several representatives from the grocery industry attended the Open House.
Comments from citizens and from specially affected interests were reported during a work session with the City Council
on November 27.
Letters have been sent on three occasions over the past four months (November 5, 2012 and January 18 and February
21, 2013) to grocery store headquarter offices to keep them informed of the City of Fort Collins’ interest in limiting the
use of disposable bags.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, November 27, 2012
2. Air Quality Advisory Board Memo; Disposable Bags Recommendation, November 19, 2012
3. Summary of Public Comments - Reducing Disposable Bags
4. PowerPoint Presentation
Environmental Services
215 N. Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221-6600
970.224-6177 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMO
DATE: November 30, 2012
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
FROM: Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
RE: Follow-up from November 27 Council Worksession: Reducing Disposable Bags
At the November 27 worksession, the City Council discussed options for reducing the amount of
disposable bags that are consumed in Fort Collins. Staff understands that we are directed to:
1. Continue working to increase awareness through education and outreach among citizens
about the practice of re-using shopping bags, including a comprehensive, user friendly
website
2. Explore the ability of the City to apply a tax or fee on both plastic and paper shopping bags at
grocery stores (using a specific definition for which stores are included), and
3. Look for ways to improve the availability of recycling for plastic “film” bags in Fort Collins.
Progress on the issue of a possible fee or tax on disposable grocery bags will require further
technical and financial analysis prior to preparation of an ordinance. It is estimated that the
required analysis could be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2013, which would allow
for further Council discussion after that time.
ATTACHMENT 1
Environmental Services Department
215 North Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6600
970.224.6177 Fax
fcgov.com/environmentalservices
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers
FROM: Greg McMaster, Chair, Air Quality Advisory Board
CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
DATE: November 19, 2012
SUBJECT: Disposable Bags Recommendation
______________________________________________________________________________
The AQAB received a presentation from staff in November that outlined options for reduction of
disposable bags including education only, impose a tax or fee, or ban disposable bags. The
Board discussed a range of environmental harms that occur from use of disposable bags,
including littering, harming wildlife and ecosystems, etc., and also recognized the problems
plastic bags cause in single stream recycling machinery. The Board discussed what they thought
would be appropriate next steps. All members favored Council taking action to correct the
problems caused by plastic bags, and the large minatory not supporting the motion was only
because they specifically wanted a stronger motion banning plastic bags at this time.
Please contact me if you have any questions or want additional detail on the recommendation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Dennis Georg moved and David Dietrich seconded a motion to recommend to Council that they adopt
ordinances that would significantly reduce plastic bags.
Vote 4-3-0-(4 supporting – 3 against– 0 abstained)
Scott Groen, Nancy York and Hugh Mackay dissented because they felt the motion was not
strong enough – they wanted plastic bags banned.
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Written Comments on Reducing Disposable Bags
Open House November 8, 2012
Poster 1 – “Your input is welcome”
1. The people want freedom and government off our backs!!! We don’t want to be another “Boulder”. We
want the use of plastic bags and cardboard boxes to continue. Don’t pass these laws against us. Leave us
alone! This whole thing is part of “Agenda 21” from the United Nations. They pay cities money and perks to
force us into “Agenda 21”.
Poster 2 – “Two Recycling Initiatives – draft proposals from staff”
1. No plastic bags in Fort Collins
2. Prohibit plastic bags
3. I favor a fee for bags preceding an outright ban.
4. Fees on paper and plastic bags a good idea – disincentive without a ban. People can do the math.
5. Don’t take away my freedom (disposable bags). Is it time to take our shopping outside of Fort Collins (the
No Choice City)
6. Love idea to drop plastic bags from shops! They are littering our city.
Poster 5 – “Three Bag-Reduction Strategies”
1. Charge small fee per bag. Include take-out from restaurants.
2. Prohibit plastic bags for groceries and all other shopping (Macy’s, Penny’s, etc.)
3. Don’t exempt any shopper. Allow to purchase a re-usable bag with food stamps.
4. Why exempt food stamp shoppers other than poverty. Why are they special? Don’t my limited funds count?
5. Paper bags leave a large carbon footprint. Between transportation and being only single use. Education,
more recycling.
6. Charge a fee for paper or plastic. I think poor people can participate.
7. Fee seems from studies to be most effective.
8. I hate dealing with plastic bags from a recycling standpoint. Plastic bags mixed in with just about anything
we collect contaminates the load at worst and at best create many additional man-hours to remove and
separate, which diminishes the value of recyclables. I would personally like to see a fee attached to the
bags. If someone wants the option of using that type of bag they can pay for all of the downstream expense
everyone else incurs. However, before putting into place, an exhaustive educational program needs to take
place focusing not only on the problems of the bags but also on OPTIONS. Could the City apply for a grant
to provide anybody that wanted re-usable bags with 2-3 bags for free to the user? Maybe bags 4-5 would
be at a small cost. City would then be reducing bags but would also be giving interested citizens a product
that when used, actually can generate a rebate or a credit at most stores. If this were all in place,
exhaustive education had been implemented and people still choose to use plastic, then let them pay a
small fee for that service.
Poster 6 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 1- No Action)”
1. Doing nothing is simply not an option.
ATTACHMENT 3
2
2. We need to act. No action is not an option.
3. Not an option and still (be able to) claim green or sustainable city.
4. No action means more and more plastic bags clog and pollute (potentially) the environment. Need to do
something.
5. Unfortunately, many people do act like a “child”. Thus we have plastic bags around the countryside.
6. This is a problem. We’re late adapters here. Ban or restrict plastic.
7. Much preferred. I am an adult don’t treat me like a child!
8. People can learn to be responsible but some need a BIG push.
9. We need more education city wide.
Poster 7 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 2- Fee or tax on plastic & paper bags)”
1. 1) Education about recycling 2) education about what other uses bags can be put to 3) list of existing bag
recycling locations: to make a realistic difference, implement a fee, probably 10 cents per bag for either
plastic or paper.
2. I would prefer no plastic but second choice is tax/charge for plastic at stores.
3. No fees. More education. People can’t afford it as it is now.
4. It’s more important to phase out single use plastic bags entirely. There may be too much opposition to this
option.
5. My first choice.
6. Me too (my first choice)!
7. Too hard to manage.
8. Need to keep working on this issue. It would be wonderful to end plastic bags in Fort Collins.
9. If there’s a fee, give to a specific group to make bags that work and are degradable. Education is a great
idea…we’re one of the brightest communities in the country!
10. I’d like to see either a fee charged by stores for plastic and paper bags, or a requirement that they provide a
bag credit to their customers for bringing either cloth or durable bags.
11. I don’t see why this is so hard. Bring your own bag to the store. It seems like a simple, inexpensive solution
to an environmental problem. Start with a bag fee if you have to. But work into a total ban on plastic bags.
There are better uses for petroleum.
12. Could the City or retailers provide bags as one-time offer to low income population?
13. We don’t need another tax. Stop promoting poverty!
14. Option 2 is the second best option.
15. Please make connections with GHG and trash in oceans and natural areas.
16. What would the tax be used for?
17. Like better than ban – make fee significant like $.25 or more per bag.
18. It would be nice if grocery stores took responsibility for this like Vitamin Cottage does.
Poster 8 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 3- Ban on Plastic & Paper Bags)”
1. Plastic bags are the #2 pollutant in the ocean.
2. We should not be bettered by Bolder – we can do this here!
3. This would be my last choice – people like to be nudged in the correct direction, not jerked or shoved.
4. Natural Grocers has done this. Bring your own bags or put stuff in a box.
5. Ban Bags! We’ll learn to bring our own cloth bags.
3
6. I think the ban is unnecessary regulation for a very small portion of the waste stream. Focus on bigger
waste streams like yard waste and construction waste.
7. Best option. We’ll adjust
8. What is the carbon footprint of a “cloth” bag? Would be interesting to compare. Cloth (cotton) is farmed.
Agriculture is one of the biggest polluters. How much cotton goes into one bag? How many pounds of gas
used to farm, etc.?
9. Oh for heaven’s sake, they cost a dollar! The cheepie ones with a store logo.
10. A plastic bag ban should include paper as well. How hard is it to bring your own bag? I support a ban!
11. Sponsor or co-sponsor the documentary “Bag It”
12. Savings passed on to customers? What might that be?
13. We are not Boulder. Don’t like bags, don’t use them. Stop treading on me!
14. Plastic only.
15. If we ban, it needs to be coupled with an extensive education campaign.
Poster 9 – “Reducing Waste: Plastic Bag Initiative (Option 4- Education Campaign)”
1. Not effective enough. Not a big enough change.
2. Might as well do nothing.
3. Plastic bags are only part of the problem. What about other types of film products that get thrown out?
They are recycled in other cities. Please look at expanding plastic recycling.
4. “Edumaction do not werk”
5. Education does not work.
6. Help people to understand the consequences of more plastic bags and then encourage them to use re-
usable bags.
7. Won’t work
8. I agree (won’t work)
9. Place fee on bags from all shopping including restaurants. Proceed with education.
10. Education is fine. No loss of freedom. No new law. No more regulation. No need to take my tax dollars
outside of city.
11. Has to be paired with some concrete incentive to be effective – we can do more of this.
12. People should have choices. More education. More drop-off roll-offs at major stores. Let people know
where to drop off recyclables.
13. People should have the choice.
14. What about a combination of options? Begin education campaign in the beginning (6-8 months); continue
education campaign, begin fee for plastic bags to encourage people to stop using them. City can use fee
revenue for education (1 year). After 1.5 – 2 years, begin ban on bags, continue education campaign.
15. Would like first to see and education campaign – this has been successful in other cities/states in increasing
recycling while leaving the choice to the consumer. Education the consumer on the facts about each bag
(paper, plastic, reusable) and the carbon footprint of each.
16. Plastic bags; I seldom throw a plastic grocery bag in the trash. About once a month I take my collection to a
retailer that has a recycle bin. (More stores should be required to have such.) We use our newspaper bag
for dog poo and “bathroom” disposals (get about 700 or them/year from Coloradoan and Denver Post).
Let’s education only and not be an annex of Boulder.
4
Other Comments (e-mail, phone)
Subject: Recycling plastic bags
We use cloth bags much of the time from grocery stores, but we also like the availability of some plastic bags, and
would pay a nickel or something for them, because we use them for garbage bags and dog poop bags. Please don’t
ban them entirely.
Subject: Plastic bags
I have mixed emotions regarding the plastic bag issue. My wife and I use reusable bags always at the grocery stores.
This cuts our bag use by about 85%. At Outpost Sunsport, we do provide larger plastic bags for customers when they
are purchasing predominantly winter clothing. It wouldn’t be appropriate to put a new white ski jacket in the bag that
you have used at the grocery store the past 20 or 30 trips. I would prefer to offer more of a reusable product, but we
couldn’t afford to give them away and I am not sure someone would want to pay 4 or 5 dollars for one when they are
purchasing something from us.
Should the city decide to ban plastic bags, I would hope that there would be a fairly long time to implement this. I am
sure that I have somewhere between 12 and 24 months’ worth of bags in stock at this time. I would imagine a lot of
small retailers would be in a similar position.
Subject: Consideration of Fort Collins disposable bag policy
The Coloradoan recently reported on the City Council's upcoming consideration of policies to reduce the use of
disposable shopping bags. I am unable to attend the public “open house” on November 8th, but I wish to convey
three points on the matter:
1. Paper is worse than plastic. As the Brendle Group's review notes, banning or taxing plastic bags while omitting
paper bags would amount to foolish public policy. With respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – the
environmental impact of most concern to me – the production and disposal of a paper bag results in four times more
pollution than a plastic bag. Contrary to public perception, shifting from plastic to paper actually decreases
environmental quality. If the City Council is intent upon pursuing this matter, it must incentivize a shift from disposable
bags (whether paper or plastic) to reusable bags – preferably made of non-woven polypropylene, which is durable
and requires only about a dozen uses to confer a net GHG benefit over conventional plastic bags.
2. The cost-to-benefit ratio is high. The Brendle Group's review draws no conclusions regarding the likely overall
balance of social costs and benefits. A rough calculation using figures based on Boulder's proposed bag fee program
suggests such a policy would reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions at a cost of $100 per ton CO2eq. This is
exceptionally high given the multitude of low-cost abatement options available to the City, particularly energy
efficiency incentives for buildings. Further, it is not clear why a contentious policy should be pursued – likely harming
future efforts for more meaningful environmental reforms – when the benefits are relatively small and cost
comparatively high.
3. Is this about results or appearance? That ostensibly “green” cities like San Francisco and Portland have banned
plastic bags should have no bearing on the City Council's decision. Those cities were guided by erroneous (though
well-meaning) public pressure rather than rational research and policymaking. Make no mistake: I am 100% in favor
of durable, reusable bags – my wife and I have used them for years – but only if the associated policy can deliver
tangible (rather than imagined or “feel good”) environmental benefits and is cost-effective compared to alternative
sustainability efforts. Further, citizens should not be given the impression that forgoing a plastic bag equates to
“saving the Earth”. The average consumer produces twice as much pollution driving their car to and from the
supermarket as they do using and throwing away a plastic bag. Let's be sure to direct environmental emphasis and
education where it belongs and ensure our public policies are optimal rather than fashionable.
Subject: Fort Collins Plastic bag proposals
5
I do not know if this is the exact manner in which I should be making comments on the reusable grocery bags issue,
but I hope you will register my concerns in some manner.
I am opposed to the city's enacting regulations on this matter for several reasons.
1) I greatly dislike the increasingly intrusive reach of government into the lives of citizens on many levels. This is a
diminishment of freedom in my view and this alone is reason enough to object to this proposal.
2) I am not convinced that banning paper or plastic bags is an environmentally or economically wise effort. I have
read articles that suggest the environmental and other costs of reusable bags over their expected life cycle does not
in fact produce any savings over those same costs for using paper or plastic bags.
3) It is a great inconvenience for the shopper to have to provide his own bags. What happens if you are simply
forgetful and go to the grocery store without the appropriate bags? Some kind of penalty is then imposed, if no more
than to be forced to buy more bags (which includes any measure by the city to charge a fee for the use of other
bags).
4) I think there might well be health safety issues involved in reusing bags that could be contaminated. And if those
bags need laundering to prevent contamination, then of course that simply adds other environmental costs due to
increased use of water, soap, etc.
In my view, the city should let the free market determine such matters. If it is truly more cost effective to recycle
shopping bags, then the marketplace will make that feasible in a consumer-friendly manner. If not, why should
government force it down our throats?
Subject: Ban on Plastic Bags
Hello, I revieved my city news mailer a little late, and want to put my two cents in on this subject.
I am very pleased the council is looking at how we can help our environment and reduce our community waste. I
FULLY support a ban on plastic bags within the city of Fort Collins.
I would like to see a complete ban with an option to purchase paper bags. Also, perhaps the council could find a
portion of funding for allowing people to purchase reusable bags at a discount and make them readily available at
retail markets. Small boxes have been given away for free for some time in conscientious establishments such as
Vitamin Cottage (Natural Grocers). These are easily recycled at curbside and make carrying easy.
I do hope the council will take my comments into consideration and make a bold move to ban plastic bags in Fort
Collins. I trust the council is making an educated and wise decision in these matters for the future of our environment.
Survey Gizmo Responses/Comments on Reducing Disposable Bags
Report Generated: November 27, 2012 at 2:24 p.m.
134 Complete – Nov 27, 2012 (1:34 PM)
I am opposed to charging for plastic bags for the following reasons: 1. Cost with little benefit. It will add about $1-2/
week for families and will not save the planet. It is effectively another city tax. 2. Inconvenient to carry a bunch of
6
other bags to pick up groceries. I like to idea of a Coloradoan op ed. Let stores give a 3 cent reimbursement for those
who do not us plastic bags.
133 Complete – Nov 27, 2012 (1:20 PM)
As with the cardboard issue that is being discussed, I believe that as a community we can achieve a much higher
diversion rate through education of our citizens. Penalizing the consumer for the use of plastic bags isn't in our
community's best interest right now due to the number of families that are struggling. Further, asking businesses to
absorb more cost to increase cardboard recycling efforts will drive the cost of business up. And these costs will be
passed directly to the consumer.
Educating the public as to how these items can be effectively recycled or reused, and collaborating with the various
disposal companies in town and ask them to offer the correct dispensers for this purpose will go a long way. As I
heard recently in a presentation from City Staff, many items that citizens currently place into recycle bins aren't even
recycled. Education is the key, as most of our population is educated and want to do their part. Make it simple and
easy. Also, assuming that most consumers simply throw away their plastic bags and cardboard is very short sighted.
Most people that I have spoken to about this do recycle what they can, consumers and businesses alike.
Cooperation and education before regulation.
132 Complete – Nov 27, 2012 (12:35 PM)
Would it be better to use the doggie poo bags (provided by the City) from my local park to carry my groceries home
in? It doesn't make sense to me to ban or pay a fee for plastic bags at grocery stores. What about all the restaurants
and other retailers in town who send items home in a plastic bag? Are they exempt, or is it going to cost us more to
shop everywhere? Talk about a Fiscal Cliff!
131 Complete – Nov 27, 2012 (8:58 AM)
My comments are simple, 1. Why did you bury this announcement in the recycling section? This should have been
on the main home page for the city. 2. I will simply do most of my shopping in our sister cities and not in Fort Collins,
if you are worried about pollution add the extra gas to drive to these other cities. 3. We recycle so much that as a
family of 4 we rarely have more than 1/2 of a 33 gallon trash can full per week, but we still HAVE to take our plastic
bags to the store to recycle them as Fort Collins will not take them!!!! 4. You forget that cloth bags MUST be washed
between uses if they carry meat or produce. If you add that in the equation they are FAR worse than plastic bags for
energy use. 5. Does this also include the plastic bags you put produce in?
130 Complete – Nov 27, 2012 (8:38 AM)
Keep consumer choice. It seems this city always wants to implement anything Boulder implements. We reuse all of
our plastic bags and without them, we will purchase plastic bags to replace the ones we reuse.
129 Complete – Nov 26, 2012 (9:40 PM)
Hello! I support banning plastic bags and having a fee for paper bags. It is SO easy to carry a few reusable shopping
bags around in the car, or on the bicycle. Given the huge problem that plastic bags cause, just having a fee when
used will not reduce their use enough. These plastic bags take such a long time to decompose, and are light enough
to be carried by the wind many miles, and many end up in the ocean. Please ban the plastic bag! Thank you!!
7
128 Complete – Nov 26, 2012 (8:14 PM)
I'm concerned that Fort Collins seems to have to follow in Boulder's footsteps. If liberal Boulder is doing it, by golly,
we'd better get on the same bandwagon and do it too. Again, don't clog the city's ordinances and regulations with
trivial matters. Use education to accomplish your goals at reducing use of plastic/paper bags. Single use bags are re-
used many, many times over. They are not always simply tossed in the trash. The reusable bags (many of them have
plastic components too- gasp!) are handy, but they are not readily available to everyone. Maybe it is not much to
some people, but there are families in our fair city who watch every penny. So now the city (oops, I mean taxpayers)
will be funding supplies of reusable bags. And don't forget the studies about the bacteria living in those bags-- nasty
stuff that you are advocating for! So, some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but really! Educate, don't regulate people! Don't
"regulate" when "educate" will accomplish your goals.
127 Complete – Nov 26, 2012 (4:35 PM)
Plastic kills at least 2 million birds, whales, dolphins, seals, seal lions and turtles every year. 100 million tons of
plastic has entered the world's oceans. The amount of plastic doubles in the worlds oceans every three years. Plastic
does not dissolve; it breaks into tiny pieces and stays there for up to 1,000 years, contaminating soil, waterways and
oceans and entering the food web when eaten by animals. There is an easy, clean, inexpensive alternative to plastic
bags. Simply bring your own cloth or other reusable bags. How hard is that?
126 Complete – Nov 25, 2012 (8:40 PM)
Wanted to leave input as to limiting the use of plastic bags. I do understand efforts to reduce use of plastic, but am
still waiting on an alternative to lining household trash cans. No one wants to clean the interiors of kitchen or
bathroom trash cans that have not been lined. Plastic is especially useful in the kitchen for moist and wet disposal of
cooking items. Plastic is needed for feminine hygiene products in bathroom trash. If we stop lining our cans and must
wash them once a day, we are now being poor stewards with a very precious Colorado resource -- water!! When
Whole Foods first ceased use of plastic bags, I asked the checkout clerk what people were using to line their trash
cans. She very perkily replied that they purchase trash can liners. Why would I purchase plastic bags to line my trash
cans, when I now receive them free of charge when purchasing groceries? I never throw away my plastic grocery
bags, never. I do reuse them to line trash cans. Please don't take my trash bags away!! A reuser, a recycler & a
repurposer
125 Complete – Nov 25, 2012 (1:41 PM)
I am not in support of the city's pending decision to establish a fee for plastic bags. I, and many many of my friends,
reuse plastic bags for trash can liners, pet cleanup, crafts, storing items, transporting items we donate to charities,
and numerous other uses. Grocery stores are our main source of these bags, and if prohibited or charged a fee, we
will be forced to purchase plastics. That it only creating more production of plastics. FC residents have taken great
strides to reduce landfill trash. Give us some credit and don't keep pushing until we become another city to be
mocked, like Boulder. I think the city's already wasted tax payer dollars on commissioning studies, which suggest
further studies on the matter. Since when has the "reuse" portion of the recycle triangle become a negative?
124 Complete – Nov 25, 2012 (9:25 AM)
Hello, I do support some kind of effort to reduce the number of bags that we use, although I do not support an
outright ban. I bring my own canvas bags to the store, but there are times when it's not ideal. Plastic bags work great
8
for meats at the grocery store, food take out, and anything with the potential to leak. If my laundry detergent comes
open in my canvas bag, it will soak through the canvas and get all over everything. In those cases I like the option of
having a plastic bag instead.
However I notice the most waste when I don't need a bag - I bought a single light bulb at Home Depot yesterday and
before I could say anything I was having it handed to me in a bag. This is the over-delivery of plastic bags that I
believe we are all targeting. Maybe the first answer is to strongly encourage all local businesses to only give a bag
when one is requested. Thanks for taking the effort to open discussion on this matter - I hope you all can come up
with a reasonable answer to reduce the plastic trash that we needlessly produce. thanks
123 Complete – Nov 24, 2012 (9:40 PM) I fully support a plastic bag ban in the Fort Collins city.
122 Complete – Nov 23, 2012 (8:01 PM)
Regulation of plastic bags is not a proper role of government. Our council wasn't elected to pursue a role as parents
of a community of juvenile citizens. I can make my own responsible decisions to recycle cardboard and whether I
want to use my own shopping bags.
121 Complete – Nov 23, 2012 (4:11 PM) Please do not ban or charge for plastic bags. Encourage re-use and
recycling
120 Complete – Nov 23, 2012 (10:08 AM)
Oh, one other thought. Don't turn this into a political issue. Please, don't start trying to sway public opinion by
spending our tax dollars to put up anti-plastic bag and anti-paper bag posters, etc. Thanks.
119 Complete – Nov 23, 2012 (10:05 AM)
Hi---i agree that we need to not throw the plastic bags in the trash. However, let's not Boulderize Fort Collins. DO
NOT ban the plastic bags. I would put my efforts in better recycling of the bags. Some reward for recycling them at
the checkout counter? Maybe 5 cents/bag for every one you bring in to recycle.
118 Complete – Nov 21, 2012 (2:01 PM)
Leave plastic bags alone! I can think of MANY instances where not being given a plastic bag when purchasing
something will be a nuisance, an inconvenience, and just plain stupid.
117 Complete – Nov 21, 2012 (3:35 AM)
Although I am a longtime Fort Collins resident, I've been living in Europe for the past six months where plastic bags
are banned by the EU. It is so easy to use a reusable bag. I just bring them to the store with me and I also keep a
small nylon bag in my purse that unfolds if I purchase something on the go. If by chance I need a bag, they are
available for sale at usually one Euro or less. The great thing is that there is less litter and it helps keep trash out of
landfills. Fort Collins should do this for the environment.
116 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:10 PM)
I completely support a ban or surcharge on plastic bags. I recently watched the documentary "Bag It," and I haven't
looked at plastic bags the same way since. I really hope my community will support this!
9
115 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (10:30 PM) Charge both for plastic and paper bags.
114 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (9:17 PM)
I would vote for a ban on plastic and they keep paper for a season but push the cloth bags to the consumers.
113 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:01 PM) Get rid of plastic bags!
112 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:43 PM)
I am personally a huge supporter of the banning of plastic bags. Many other cities and countries have done this and
have been successful. I truly hope that this is something that will pass here in town.
111 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:34 PM)
I would FULLY support a plastic bag ban in this city!!!! Vitamin Cottage has been successful with this in town as
Whole Foods too. This would be an EXCELLENT way for our city to take a stand and do something GOOD for all. I
have not personally used plastic bags for a couple of years now and it has been fine! You get used to bringing your
own bags with you! I say LETS DO IT!!!!
110 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (5:50 PM)
I realize that plastic bags are a problem if not disposed of properly. We've all seen then blowing around the yard and
wish people would be more thoughtful when disposing of ALL TRASH. I reuse all of my plastic bags I get, whether it
is the bag from my newspaper carrier or the bag my toilet papet rolls are wrapped in. If plastic bags are banned, it
would be a real inconvenience to those of us who reuse them.
Thanks for listening. I think the trash from cigarettes, alcohol and fast food restaurants is a bigger problem than
plastic bags.
109 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (5:17 PM)
Please fire Fort Collins' Senior Envirnonmental Planner and all employees of the Environmental Department. It is
obvious that we are wasting money on these positions. Ms. Gordon job seems to be to find problems where none
exist. As a college educated person, I am quite capable of choosing paper, plastic, a reusable bag, or no bag at all.
But, it is MY CHOICE, NOT Ms. Gordon's or the City Council's. Please stop infringing on our freedoms. Stay out of
my life. NOTE: Reusable bags have been shown to spread food borne illnesses by improper cleaning. These include:
Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus and many more. The City Council's
constant intrusions in my life forces me to do my shopping outside of the city limits to reduce the amount of sale tax
dollars coming to these progressive dictators.
108 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (4:37 PM)
It seems unfair for Ft. Collins to dictate to consumers that come to town for shoping and leave town to go back home
with their bags. Maybe we all should shop elsewhere.
107 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (4:11 PM) No! on more regulation - let the stores make their own decisions!
106 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (2:39 PM) Please ban plastic bags. That is all!
10
105 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (1:43 PM)
I do not want the City of Fort Collins restricting the use of plastic bags at stores. I don't believe the City government
should have any say in that whatsoever.
104 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (1:03 PM)
The whole bag debate smacks of social engineering and is a colossally bad idea. If you have landfill issues, raise the
prices at the landfill. Otherwise, the City should butt out of these environmental issues and fix the roads. I am not
paying taxes to support the Green Movement and I would rather pay fewer taxes than more taxes.
103 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:53 PM)
I love my plastic bags and paper bags they have so many useful purposes. You are taking a product the store
supplies me with to carry my product home in making me pay for it out of my pocket directly. More money out of my
pocket when there isn't any to take. Do I haul all my groceries home piece by piece to my vehicle and then into my
home? I do not want people bringing those dirty re-usable bags into a public place and spreading diseases and who
knows what. That is just plain gross.
Let the landfills sort out and recycle if it isn't good to bury this garbage in the ground. I pay them. Please DO NOT
force us to have to pay a high price for taking me products home from a store i have enough to think about without
always carrying around my reusable disposable dirty bags.
102 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:47 PM)
I would argue these bags aren't "single-use" bags. Everyone I know uses them to pack lunches, pick up after dogs,
line trash cans in their homes, etc. They are being recycled!
101 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:42 PM)
Your poll is biased by forcing the ordering of tax 'choices.' There should be a simple choice for 'no tax at all' so you
do not interpret the results to think that voters want the other tax choices as an alternative.
100 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:35 PM)
Please stop trying to regulate everything under the sun. Focus on the out of date sewer systems in NW Fort Collins,
and dealing with the huge traffic problems we are dealing with. Regulating plastic bags is just a "feel good" effort. It
will have almost no effect in the big picture. Less government equals more.
99 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:30 PM)
We do not need to pay for additional government employees for unnecessary government regulation. Most stores
already offer a discount for people who bring their own bags. We already need, use, re-use and recycle all of our
plastic and paper bags.
98 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:29 PM)
I just wanted to share my two cents. I am not in favor of a plastic bag ban. It would be an unneccessary intrusion into
business, and local grocery stores are perfectly capable of deciding what type of bagging to offer their customers.
11
Customers already have plenty of options if they wish to avoid plastic bags, and these options are well known.
Speaking for myself, the bags I take home from shopping get used repeatedly for small household trashcans, to
dispose of dog waste, to bring lunch to work, etc. If City Council decided to make these plastic bags unavailable at
the store, I would just end up buying the same number of bags anyway for each of these uses. Talk about wasteful. If
the city wants to get serious about reducing waste and increasing recycling, they should set up single-stream
recycling. As it stands now, I don't even have the option to recycle in my condo because the HOA won't pay for it.
That is the case in many parts of the city, a problem that would be solved by single-stream. A ban on plastic bags
would be misguided overreach, and it would leave a bad taste in the mouths of many in this town.
97 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (12:20 PM)
I am 100% for charging people to use plastic bags. We always carry our own bags to the store & it is a very easy &
inexpensive habit. I cannot think of one good reason that these should be offered for free. If people had to pay $0.05
or $0.10 for a bag, they might be more inclined to bring their own bags. The environmental impact of using plastic
bags is huge. http://www.envirosax.com/plastic_bag_facts
We need to think of the future when we consider this issue. Charging for bags is a small thing that we can do to help
make the world a better place for future generations.
96 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:54 AM)
I feel we need a change due to the wasteful use of plastic bags. I bring my own bags, and think that reusable bags
should be available for purchase but that we should put restrictions on plastic bags.
95 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:51 AM)
Platic bags from the grocery store are made in the USA. While reusable bags are typically made in China. Why would
the city of Ft. Collins attach US jobs in favor of persuading us to buy more Chinese goods. These bags made in
China have been found to contain lead and other harmful substances. Many gorcery store plastic bags are reused
several time before going for disposal. For lunch bags, pet waste, trash can liners. Eliminating grocery store bags will
create increased purchases of other small bags, contributing to the problem you are trying to eliminate. I do not buy
anything made in China. If Fort Collins places a ban or fee in affect, I will switch to paper bags. If paper bags are
assessed a fine, I will take my shopping to Loveland, Windsor, or Greeley. I hope you make up my tax dollars with
the fee you would be charging others. Please use common sense on this and do more research. There is no need for
this in our Community.
94 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:50 AM)
Banning bags is unnecessary. City needs to step back and let consumers be consumers. Promote re-usable bags,
but don't make it a law.
93 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:40 AM)
Banning or charging for bags, plastic or paper, is an unnecessary intrusion of government on businesses. Individual
businesses and their customers should decide the level of service, convenience or environmentalism they wish to
provide. Many people reuse bags and many grocery stores provide bag recycling bins. If the city feels it absolutely
must address this issue, it should not go beyond an education effort. Please stop trying to Boulderize Fort Collins.
12
92 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (11:06 AM)
Don't burden us with additional regulations. Instead of penalizing the common course of action, why don't you
promote the 'correct' course of action instead. Try leading instead of dictating. We have had enough of this big
government agenda. If your ideas are so great the people will accept them on their own without a city government
intervening and burdening the people with more regulation.
91 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (10:31 AM)
Like most in the community, I reuse my Safeway plastic bags for numerous uses. They carry my lunch to work, they
come back home and line my bathroom trash cans, and there are many, many other uses. The litter bugs that allow
them to blow down the street are the problem. Educate, like cigarette use. Fine the abusers and don't punish me by
having to buy plastic bags.
90 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (10:04 AM)
I am one of the many citizens who reuse my plastic bags - for doggie pickup, lining my wastebaskets, etc. I am not in
favor of a ban, but would instead prefer more opportunities for recycling plastic bags. A more critical issue, in my
opinion, is diversion of yard waste from the landfill. Most progressive cities have had recycling of yard waste available
for years. It seems short-sighted of Fort Collins to still require citizens to pay a fee to Hageman or Weitzel in order to
make better use of our yard waste.
89 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (10:04 AM)
I am totally in favor of a plastic bag ban but I fear the backlash of an uninformed community. I think most people
believe it is just more Government interference. So scary! I believe that education of the receptive masses ( the
unreceptive are lost as always..) would be the first step ( waste issues-petroleum usage-issues recycling, export of
our recyclables for processing) Even my 'thoughtful' neighbors use plastic and paper grocery bags possibly thinking
that since they are such good recyclers, those bags are not a problem. They throw ALL glass, plastic and paper in
their curbside containers. Their intent is good although uninformed. Small print on utility invoices is not read in
today's busy world. Somehow, these issues need to smack people in the face. Get more people on your side of the
issue before it is attempted. and GOOD LUCK!
88 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (10:03 AM)
Absolutly just stop spending any time or resources on this non-issue. Plastic is not evil. I will only have to purchase
500+ trash bags and lunch sacks and quick pack sleep over supply carriers. on and on. What if I just purchase bulk
convienient, lightwieght, inexpensive, strong bags with handles do I get a pass on the fees? Stop wasting time on
this, really.
87 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (9:59 AM)
I think it is an excellent idea. We need to be a model of sustainability, not just talk about it. Please forge ahead with
this issue.
86 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (9:50 AM)
13
We opt for plastic bags most of the time. We use them as trash bags in our bathrooms. We use them for lunch bags.
We use them for numerous purposes when traveling and camping. They hold a pair of shoes in a suitcase to keep
clothes clean. They hold dirty undies as well. The bags we don't use we drop off at the recycling stations - since they
aren't allowed in our curbside recycling container. I think a ban on plastic shopping bags is not a good idea. We do
also use reusable bags. They have to be sanitized and washed often which uses water and hazardous chemicals.
They take up space in the car, you don't have them all the time in your back pocket do you? There is no free lunch
folks.
83 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (9:13 AM)
What about trash can liner bags? There is probably as much total plastic in the waste system from trash can bags as
there is from the little grocery bags!
85 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:36 AM)
I disagree with the idea of banning plastic bags or charging for them. I reuse mine frequently. I also recycle them at
the grocery store when I have too many. Furthermore, they come in handy in a lot of household applications. For
instance, I use them for my primary trash bags (therefore I do not not buy official trash bags). My pet waste is put in
them (so I am not buying other plastic pet disposal bags). I use them for bathroom trash, lunches, taking food to other
places. As you can see, by banning them, you only force people to go out and buy other plastic bags for their needs.
82 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:34 AM)
I am starting to get real sick of the city telling me what to do with my life!!!! This city is so far up the butt's of the
citizens. Charge a fee like the other 50 cities in the US. This is a small town that use to be about agriculture and now
it is like living in a giant HOA. Stop trying to make this some great utopia. It was better 15 years ago.Now, my family
is starting to think about moving, I honestly thought I would retire here.
81 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:16 AM)
Banning plastic bags!!! Are you kidding me. Do we have to do everything Boulder does? The earth has been here for
billions of years, survived massive volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, impacts of giant asteroids, solar flares,
continental drift, ice ages, numerous periods of global warming, and we're worried about plastic bags?!!
The earth will survive long, long after human life has disappeared. Lets forget trying to become "Fort Boulder" and go
back to using common sense.
80 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:04 AM)
Our grocery store already gives a 5 cent discount for using our own bags. Please leave it at that. By the way, if a fee
were imposed, where does the money go?
76 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (8:01 AM)
I reuse plastic bags for everything from storage to taking out daily trash as do my neighbors please do not remove
this multitasking wonder.
79 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:53 AM)
14
I like the fact that Sprouts credits the customer 5 cents for each bag they bring in. Perhaps King Soopers, Safeway, &
Target would agree to a promotional period to do the same (at least for check out assisted lanes - perhaps not for
self check out). If it comes to charging for bags, the bags should be ones that could be used more than once for
groceries - like Target bags. The King Soopers & Safeway bags are so thin that they barely make it home intact.....so
they automatically go in my "recyclable collection" ....but if they were a bit stronger, they could be reused as a
grocery bag additional times before ending up in the bag collection boxes at the grocery store. It's nice to have plastic
bags - esp. for wet foods / meat.
78 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:46 AM)
If you want to raise people's awareness of an issue, don't start from a punitive position. Start with education. You
have not even done that yet. Are you imitating Boulder? If I wanted to live there, I would not have left. Why would you
skip all steps and even consider going directly to punishment and banning? I am disappointed and bewildered by the
Draconian method by which you have introduced this issue to the community. Even your introduction style is going to
create negative feelings about the campaign. You should have consulted with a PR firm first, because you are really
going about this backwards. I always recycle bags. I use plastic shopping bags to pick up the dog's poop. If I did not
do that, I would have to use the bags that the city provides or buy manufactured bags, which sort of defeats the
purpose, don't you think? I always believed I was saving the city money by recycling my bags and not using the ones
they provided with our tax dollars, and was helping the environment by not purchasing dog poop bags from Pet
Smart. Please use your brains and don't jump on some progressive bandwagon that you think will make Fort Collins
sound like Boulder and Portland. That's not why we pay taxes to hire you, and it is not the goal of most citizens for
this town to become a northern version of Boulder. You work for the citizens. Do not lose sight of this. Look at the
long-term impact. Be smart and do education. And when you do that education, tell the massive percentage of dog
owners in the city how they can pick up poop without using plastic bags from grocery stores, and without generating
the manufacturing of even more new bags specifically for dog poop.
77 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:42 AM)
Years and years and years ago, I made a set of reusable grocery bags. After more than a decade, the handles are
wearing out and making a new set of bags is on my "to do" list. Hence, I am an individual who has been doing her
part to reduce the number of plastic grocery bags in landfills since LONG before it was "the cool" thing to do. Over
the years, I have noticed more and more people toting their reusable bags through stores. I no longer get nasty looks
from baggers when I hand them my reusable bags. Baggers have also stopped stuffing my bags so full that the fabric
rips when I try to lift them out of the cart. This change has been the result of more people using reusable bags. In the
past, I was apparently the only person using reusable bags who wasn't a militant "tree hugger". In those days,
baggers would frequently be chewed out by reusable bag shoppers with an overflowing cart and two fabric grocery
bags. Those folks wanted the bags packed super full so that no disposable bags would be used. With the general
public now choosing reusable bags, things have changed. All of this data indicates to me that a mindset has changed
and a behavior change is following closely behind. I don't believe a city policy is needed to make this change. Let's
trust the folks of Fort Collins to make this change on their own. I truly have noticed great leaps made on this issue in
just the past five years. Please, be patient and just give us some time.
75 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:25 AM)
15
We do not need another govt regulation! We all have brains & can use them! We know where bags go & can get
them there, we don't need more nanny state regulations! If I am charged for plastic I will purchase less, only what fits
in my reusable bags, hurting merchants & lowering income from sales tax.
74 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (7:06 AM) Ban them! We can out-liberal Boulder!
84 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (6:54 AM)
I tried to submit my opinion online about the plastic/paper bags but it wouldn't let me reorder the choices so it
submitted exactly as it was. I hope that wasn't the case for other people as well because my choices were submitted
incorrectly. I'm afraid this might affect the results of your poll. I am strongly in favor of a ban on all plastic
grocery/shopping bags and a fee charged for paper bags. A lot of people still don't care much about the environment
unless they feel the effects themselves. Maybe if they had to pay for bags, they would start making an effort to bring
their own.
Thank you!
72 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (6:25 AM)
I am against this. I have reusable bags and I use them when I remember to put them in my car. I don't want to have
to supply each of our vehicles with a set of bags just so I have them with me at all times. I also don't like having to
carry bags around with me while I am shopping. I feel for the parents that are already toting around all of the stuff for
their children and then to tell them they have to carry bags just in case they buy something is nuts. Do not ban plastic
bags. What about the low income folks and college students. They can't afford the food much less the bag to put it in.
73 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (6:25 AM) I am totally opposed to this.
71 Complete – Nov 20, 2012 (2:07 AM)
It's embarrassing that our city is actually considering this. Please don't take this seriously. Do not ban bags, do not
charge for bags, do not change anything. This is a complete joke
70 Complete – Nov 19, 2012 (7:35 PM) We support this initiative - tired of seeing plastic bags on every fence in
Colorado.
69 Complete – Nov 19, 2012 (7:33 PM)
Stop micromanaging our lives! This is ridiculous. Leave us alone. If a grocer wants to implement this and it results in
loyal customers the market will determine.
68 Complete – Nov 19, 2012 (7:29 PM)
Absolutely not!!!!! This is just stupid, and will have so many unintended consequences!! Not everywhere you go can
you carry a reusable bag. What happens when you need to buy embarrassing items at the store and don't have your
own bag? What about a bag that tears after you have paid but not yet left...does a cashier have to ring in a 10 cent
transaction so I can pay with a credit card? If i take a bag because mine ripped but don't pay 10 cents is that theft
and can i go to jail? Maybe make some better decisions like asking grocers to use soy based bags or something...but
this is just a stupid way of imposing more and more and more and more fees onto citizens...all while our paychecks
are going down or disappearing all together!!! This isn't Boulder! Get a mind of your own for criminy sakes! This is not
16
the right way to help the environment. Didn't we do this same thing back in the 70's with paper bags? And guess
what? We STILL have paper bags in stores. STOP METTLING IN PEOPLE'S LIVES!!! This is not something city
council should have any say in!
67 Complete – Nov 19, 2012 (6:21 PM)
No ban. Ordinance requiring retailers distributing plastic bags to provide prominent recycling stations.
66 Complete – Nov 19, 2012 (1:16 AM)
I agree with banning plastic bags. I know in my household alone we go through tons of plastic bags if we forget to
bring reusable ones. We donate any bags to be recycled once again, but many households simply throw them away.
If my small household could be doing that much damage while still attempting to maintain a doable level of recycling,
it raises the question... how many resources are being wasted in Fort Collins alone? It may bring frustration to
citizens not as aware of their surroundings at first, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. I am all for it!
65 Complete – Nov 18, 2012 (6:45 PM)
NO regulation of plastic bags. THERE IS NO PROBLEM! 1. Has a study been done to measure the impact of plastic
bags on Fort Collins? 2. How many bags are picked up on an annual basis? 3. What is the cost of this pickup? 4. Do
we really have a plastic bag problem? 5. Is the issue the improper disposal of the bags or the bags themselves? 6. If
it is improper disposal than go after the persons improperly disposing of the bags. 7. Is it truly more energy efficient to
buy and reuse bags made in china? 8. More plastic bags fit in the same space as one reusable bag therefore more
cargo ships would be needed to transport reusable bags from China. 9. Is this the will of the people? 10. Are City
Council forgetting they are the PEOPLES representatives not their caretakers? 11. In an article in the Coloradan it
was sited that some cities reward, rather than penalize their citizens for using reusable. Positive reinforcement is the
better tool to change habits you get less resentment! 12 If you charge for the use of plastic bags isn't it just a hidden
way for the city to increase revenues? 13 Would the revenue be used solely for the cleanup and proper disposal of
plastic bags? 14 How would this potential move disrupt the business community? 15. Delays in checkout as baggers
have to deal with varying bag sizes etc. 16. What about potential spreading of disease? Would a bag with spoiled
food particles in it be more likely to spread e-coli or the like? I am not in favor of a ban or added tax on plastic bags. I
have seen a VERY small number of bags in trees or in fences, BUT not more than paper or other wastes improperly
dispose of. Thank you for your time and please remember it is NOT your will that needs to be done as a member of
government it is THE PEOPLES’, so be sure you are representing ALL the people.
64 Complete – Nov 18, 2012 (10:32 AM)
Hi, The Green Store downtown uses plastic bags that are biodegradable and are made from corn. I can't imagine
why we couldn't get everyone including the big chain grocery stores to use them. I also think we should have
compost dumpsters at a few sites to keep plant matter that most people put in their trash cans out of the dump.
Subsidize the green garbage cans? I don't have the answer. I pay for the green can as I hate to go to the dump and I
don't have a truck to haul it around in, but most people don't have an extra $12.00/month for yard waste. Good luck!
63 Complete – Nov 16, 2012 (7:41 PM)
So why can't there be a way to recycle them like many other items? I was a kid in high school when the book "1984"
came out; the concept of having so much of what we do monitored by Others Who Know Better was shocking then, &
17
still repellent today. Yes, the gov't has important roles in our lives---making the streets safe, etc. but it needs to stop
sticking its nose into every aspect of people's lives. A good example was the lo-flush toilets they compelled everyone
to purchase. Didn't work--I have heard plumbers say to hang onto the original ones. So now we have Toilet
Hoarders!!
62 Complete – Nov 16, 2012 (7:02 PM)
Hello! I'd love to see a ban of both plastic and paper bags in our city. Thank you so much!
61 Complete – Nov 15, 2012 (1:45 PM)
I think we should have a fee on paper and plastic disposable bags. Aren't most grocery stores doing this now
already?
60 Complete – Nov 15, 2012 (12:34 PM)
YES YES YES. What are we waiting for? Reduce plastic bags by whatever means necessary.
59 Complete – Nov 14, 2012 (6:42 PM)
Hi, I'm all in favor of a different bag policy in this city! I'm not sure if we should ban the bags altogether, but if there
were an alternative way to bag groceries and goods that would be awesome! The Food Co-op uses boxes as well as
bags, and there must be compostable bags somewhere... if not, not a bad business idea. Anyway, cheers to this new
forward thinking!
58 Complete – Nov 14, 2012 (9:48 AM)
True, banning plastic grocery bags limits personal choice, but so does driving on the right side of the road. Some
things are so obviously for our own good they're no brainers. Giving up this small convenience for the sake of our
planet's health through whatever methods are most effective is definitely a step in the right direction.
57 Complete – Nov 12, 2012 (6:51 PM)
I admire the commitment of Ft Collins to encourage recycling. However, I don't agree with prohibiting disposal of
cardboard in trash nor in limiting use of disposable bags. Encouraging use of reusable bags is admirable but the
disposable bags provided by stores are often reused for numerous activities, i.e., participants in the McBackPack
program bring their grocery bags to repack bags for distribution of groceries to children. There are numerous other
examples. I support encouraging recycling of cardboard and bags but not penalizing for their disposal.
56 Complete – Nov 11, 2012 (1:47 PM)
If Fort Collins were to enact a ban or fee for a plastic shopping bag it will be the last time I buy groceries in Fort
Collins.
55 Complete – Nov 10, 2012 (5:43 PM)
I'm all for banning or charging extra money for plastic shopping bags.
54 Complete – Nov 9, 2012 (11:46 PM)
18
Susie, I am so glad this issue is a concern. This is what I think needs to happen: First: educational outreach to help
create more awareness to the Fort Collins citizens and stores Second: A time frame for eliminating single use bags
Third: A Single Use Carry Out Bag Ordinance which includes Single-use plastic carry out bags are prohibited. This
includes all plastic bags less than 2.25 mils thick provided at check out or point of sale. Customers must be charged
5 cents per large paper bag. Retailers keep the revenue from the 5-cent charge, which is taxable and must be shown
on sales receipts. Large paper bags requiring the 5-cent charge must be a minimum of 40 percent post-consumer
recycled fiber and the fiber content must be marked on the outside. Smaller paper bags may be provided with or
without charge at the store’s discretion. Thick plastic bags — 2.25 mil or greater — are deemed reusable and may be
provided with or without charge at the store’s discretion. Plastic bags used for restaurant take-out foods and meats
and produce in grocery stores will still be allowed, because of the public health functions they provide.
53 Complete – Nov 8, 2012 (7:35 PM)
I applaud the City of Fort Collins for taking on this issue of plastic bags. I, for a long time, have personally worried
about the environmental impact of these low cost high use bags. Obviously, what is cheap and convenient is not
always best for us or the planet. Of the three proposed directions, I would back charging a fee for the use of plastic
bags charged to consumers. In the best case this would only apply to local businesses and we would ban the use of
plastic bags from our national chains. i.e., King Soopers, Safeway, Alberstons,Walmart, Home Depot. Etc. I realize
this is probably a no-go politically but I thought I would suggest the idea.
Good luck, and I hope we, Fort Collins, will lessen our footprint by reducing the use of plastic bags.
52 Complete – Nov 8, 2012 (6:52 PM)
My guess is that we will never recover the cost of the effort already spent on this idea. Looks like lots of work done
with slick brochure and all the research etc. The analysis is incomplete. It does not look at the total life cycle and get
an estimate of overall impact. For example: without plastic bags from the grocery, I will have to buy more garbage
bags to use around the house. So no decrease in bags and added cost to consumers. Another example: all food
stores now wrap meat in plastic bags (in addition to the packaging) to prevent leakage all over yourself and car. Will
this be outlawed too? You get the idea. When Governments don't look at the total system we get the inevitable result
of unintended consequences. Looking at the list of cities which have adapted this sort of regulation is not a good
example for Fort Collins. They are mostly high income, elitist nanny towns. Not really the kind of places we wish to
emulate. My guess is peer pressure and a trendy reusable bag campaign will get most everyone to do the right thing.
Also, we don't have to increase the cost of living and shopping in our great city.
51 Complete – Nov 8, 2012 (9:28 AM)
I think all bags should be banned. Vitamin Cottage recycles their produce and grocery boxes and fills those for
customers who do not bring their own bags. This system has worked for them for a long time. This is the idea model
for our community.
50 Complete – Nov 8, 2012 (7:50 AM)
When I don't have my cloth shopping bags, I use my jacket or simply place groceries unbagged on the floor of the
car. The next step will be to stop placing groceries we buy, prebagged in plastic. Shoppers can hasten that day by
selecting unbagged produce.
19
49 Complete – Nov 8, 2012 (4:50 AM)
I am tired of this never ending attempt at social engineering in this city. First it is tiered utility and water rates, then it
is trying to force only selected trash hauling companies, then it is trying to ensure only certain foods are fed to the
school kids. How is it environmentally friendly to see that most cloth bags are made in China with who knows what
kinds of chemicals in them and then the waste of energy and production of air pollution to have them shipped here. I
took my usual walk the day the Coloradoan article ran, along Timberline through Sunstone and English Ranch
subdivisions, through Front Range Village and along Harmony Rd-I did not see one plastic bag. What I saw was dog
poop not picked up, cigarette packs, food wrappers, aluminum cans, plastic and glass bottles. Most merchants I use
are now asking if I even want bags and the bags I have are used many times. This is a hardship on low income
people who are having difficulty making ends meet as it is. Thank you.
48 Complete – Nov 7, 2012 (3:18 PM)
I oppose a outright ban on plastic bags. I am handicapped and use a cane and carry oxygen. My hands are full and
the only bags that I can carry for my groceries are the plastic bags with handles. I do get double use out of them
since I use them as trash bags. By not buying trash bags I save 50% from the landfill.
47 Complete – Nov 7, 2012 (9:46 AM)
I am in favor of action that will reduce our use of plastic bags. A 5-10 cent charge to use one would be a good start. (I
lean toward 10cents.) Making re-usable bags available for long income people would be good. Perhaps you could
start by giving out bags at the Food Bank.
46 Complete – Nov 6, 2012 (2:19 PM)
We do not want to be like Boulder! I reuse plastic bags for collecting trash when we are camping, or out walking and
picking up other peoples trash. I stow other recyclables in them until I can get it out to the recycle bin. If I did not have
plastic shopping bags I would have to buy them, because I am not likely to quit using them. I reduce, re-use,and
recycle. Many times I stop at the store when running errands and left my reuseable bags at home or in the car, or we
took a car that did not have any bags stored in it. Leave things alone we do not need to be told how to do everything.
45 Complete – Nov 6, 2012 (10:48 AM)
Global warming is happening. Our resources are dwindling. The world is changing. Our country is starting to figure
that out and change is happening. We need to follow California and Portland and Hawaii and set an example for the
rest of the country. Plastic bags are bad. They should be a fad and a thing of the past. Thank you.
44 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (9:52 PM)
Many of the cheap, reusable bags that retailers favor are produced in Chinese factories and made from nonwoven
polypropylene, a form of plastic that requires about 28 times as much energy to produce as the plastic used in
standard disposable bags and eight times as much as a paper sack. Many of the bags go unused -- remaining
stashed instead in consumers' closets or in the trunks of their cars. Earlier this year, KPIX in San Francisco polled
500 of its television viewers and found that more than half -- 58% -- said they almost never take reusable cloth
shopping bags to the grocery store. The new awl-mart bag costs 50 cents but has less recycled content than Wal-
Mart's $1 reusable bag. The company says it wanted to offer shoppers a cheaper option. Proving that recycled
content is more expensive that virgin plastics. At the Stanford Graduate School of Business, marketing professor
20
Baba Shiv dedicated the first day of a weeklong seminar on green marketing to the "road blocks" facing reusable
bags. He says it can take "years and decades" for consumers to change their shopping habits, and only when there's
a personal reward. I think reward mechanisms are far more effective than adding a tax to the bags we use. Studies
show that plastic bags are less than 3% of the volume in any municipal landfills. Modern plastics had learned a
lesson taught by the infamous IMF (Impossible Mission Force) in that they simply self destruct! Today our PE bags
are made with a degradable additive that is non-toxic and decays even in land-fill conditions (anaerobic). They decay
even faster when carelessly tossed on the street and even when washed into culverts, creeks, rivers and yes…even
oceans. Sea Life: The plastic which endangers sea life are those impossible to pull apart cold drink rings that keep a
6 pack together…not thin PE bags. Inspections made by marine biologist of the contents of fish and sea mammals
stomachs reveal no dangers caused by PE bags. Those reusable totes now at your grocery store however have a
much greater potential for danger in our opinion as they are darn near indestructible. Litter in trees and other places:
There is no doubt that we have been a throw away society. But we can change and are changing. My neighbors are
changing! We have not had much help from our local or federal governments to recycle. But we know that some
people do not care about being responsible citizens and continue to litter; maybe it’s about education and awareness.
Our ace up the sleeve is the degradability of PE bags in that they decompose quickly into trace amounts of C02, H20
and silicon (sand). Paper also decomposes into C02, cellulose fiber and other trace compounds. Non-woven
reusable totes do not presently break down as a practical matter. Fort Collins should be urging its businesses to buy
degradable PE plastic bags that will degrade easily in a landfill. Not forcing the consumer to make a decision
between 2 bad choices. I would like to see merchants use green degradable plastics rather than forcing the
consumer to buy expensive re-usable bags that are not degradable, and often have a large carbon footprint.
43 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (9:26 PM)
Another option that should be considered is to give consumers a credit of a few cents on their shopping bill for every
bag that they bring back to the store to re-use. this will encourage re-use of existing plastic bags and reduce the
number of new bags needed.
42 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (9:23 PM)
I would like to see fort collins spend its time and resources in other areas that are more pressing. I do not believe that
the reduction of single use bags is urgent at this time.
41 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (2:36 PM) We NEED to reduce single-use bag consumption! They shouldn't be used at
all.
40 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (11:14 AM)
If City Council "Boulderizes" us again and charges for disposable bags I will go to Loveland to shop. The have all the
same stores and less sales tax anyway. I choose not to use reusable bags because of the bacteria they grow. I use
as few bags as possible and recycle the ones I don't reuse for messy trash. Your estimate of 500 bags per year must
be for a family of 8. That is almost 10 bags per week. We don't buy that much food.
39 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (10:15 AM)
Encouraging the substitution for plastic bags has enormous benefits. A small fee for the use of plastic bags will do
the trick. At the same time affordable reusable grocery bags need to be available. Carryout plastic bags should be
21
assessed the same fee. We all can learn. Perhaps report monthly or quarterly the fees collected and thenumber of
bags reduced along with the equivalent is oil savings and climate change impacts.
38 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (9:31 AM)
I also reuse all my plastic bags for trash or animal waste as does the majority identified in the study you had done. To
have to buy bags for the same purpose doesn't really impact the amount going to the landfill and saves nothing.
When I dont need trash bags I use my reusable grocery bags, which are as ubiquitous as the plastic ones. Also, even
though I'm a Democrat, I feel this isn't really the goverment's role to outlaw such things. Let each store and consumer
decide for themselves (e.g., Vitamin Cottage which no longer uses them.)
37 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (7:26 AM)
I have lived in Fort Collins my whole life. I have watched it change a lot lately. So much that I now call it Fort Boulder.
Just because Boulder passed this you think we need to. I knew it was coming. What you are looking past is the fact
that people will be forced to buy dog pooh plastic bags and plastic bags for their trash cans. So you are not
eliminating any waste. I would also like to know why the city is spending $5,000 of our dollars to do a study on plastic
bags? This money if available should have been donated to the food bank to help the huge number of people in
larimer county that are in poverty.
36 Complete – Nov 5, 2012 (6:57 AM)
Please why are you doing this now in a bad economy? We are some of those that reuse our plastic bags for trash
can liners. We are broke because of the economy. This would force us to spend more money that we do not have.
We would have to buy bags for our trash can liners, and pay for plastic bags or buy reusible bags. Everytime that
fees and things like this are passed and you think it is a good idea it is not it effects people like us that have lost our
jobs and are barely making ends meet.
35 Complete – Nov 4, 2012 (4:31 PM)
I am in favor of some sort of ban or fee on bags. My least preferred option is to do nothing.
34 Complete – Nov 4, 2012 (10:43 AM)
I support any effort by the City of Fort Collins to limit plastic and other disposable bag use (paper bags aren't any
better from a production side). I like measures such as the City of Aspen's ban on plastic bags,
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Whats-New-/Press-Releases/newsid378/345/ and a similar effort in San Francisco.
Vitamin Cottage has already limited the disposable bag option at its stores. You have my full endorsement in this
matter. Thank you.
33 Complete – Nov 4, 2012 (9:16 AM)
It is high time that people recognize that "convenience" is costly. At the very least the city should require that all
stores charge a fee for all bags. This should include department stores where the bags are heavy shiny paper
(usually not allowed in the recycling bins) with rope or string handles and gobs of tissue paper (the tissue should also
incur an additional charge). Vitamin Cottage does not provide any bags for customers (they will put your groceries in
a cardboard box if you don't have your own bags). They've been doing this for years and it works fine.
22
32 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (12:16 PM)
My take was that the cost of changing to ban or bans might cost more than the actual change in Landfill decrease
would warrant. I do support less disposable plastic and paper use. Perhaps continued education and offering the non
woven plastic bags at various community/store/project events, etc would help educate and also result in less plastic
and paper use with less cost to "us" the city. Perhaps this could still be tracked to support our sustainability efforts.
31 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (10:43 AM)
Your ranking survey is slanted in favor of banning and fees. A user should not be forced to rank all options but rather
select the options they prefer. I submit: Do nothing, educate on recycling/reuse, investigate environmentally friendly
options for plastic bags made from corn based or biodegradable materials. The fees are simply another tax and the
governments attempt to control freedoms. NO FEES, NO BANNING!
30 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (10:37 AM)
I believe this is a great opportunity for Fort Collins to lead the way and set a positive example for the world in limiting
"disposable" bag consumption! Although I have personally been using my cloth bags for ALL purchases (not just
groceries) for many years now, including reusable bags for produce and reusable containers for bulk items, I do
recognize that for some people this will force a change of habits and could create hostility. In light of that, I believe a
partial limitation and/or charging of fees for bags should be the first step. Although evidence shows that paper bags
are in many ways at least as costly and draining on the environment in their production as the plastic bags, I feel that
the post-use implications of paper bags are not as severe a detriment to our world as the plastic. I see paper bags
being reused as trash cans in homes, for containing other papers to recycle, reused at the grocery stores, and even
for other purposes such as covering textbooks. Plastic bags seem to only end up in the landfill or blowing in the wind
and never biodegrade, unlike the paper. Therefore, I would like to see a complete ban on grocery plastic bags and a
fee charged for paper bags. I do have some concern about implementing a ban on the plastic bags used for produce
within the grocery stores as well as the "doggie bags". As much as I would like to see this use of plastic also
disappear, there are not good viable options for either of these uses available right now. I fear that a ban on the
doggie bags would create a public health issue in our parks, neighborhoods, and open spaces. Banning produce
plastic bags could also have negative implications on our public health and local farmers if it discourages people from
buying fresh and/or local produce. Ultimately, I would like to see these plastic "doggie bags" and produce bags
replaced with a biodegradable/compostable plastic bag. Until such an option is more feasible, however, perhaps
these two uses of plastic bags should be left to an educational program which discourages their use and teaches
about other options. Another note about the educational program: I also took the "poll" in which I was asked to re-
order a number of choices of action for this program, one of which was to "Create an educational campaign to
promote reusable bags" Although I ordered this option near the bottom because I believe we should take MORE than
just this action, I also believe that an educational campaign is absolutely necessary to accompany ANY course of
action we take. If properly educated, people will be more apt to comply without hesitation or complaint with the new
regulations. Ignorance breeds discontent while understanding breeds tolerance. Fort Collins is known as one of the
greatest places to live. We can be a powerful voice of change while improving that quality of life even more by taking
action against this very real, very significant problem! Let's do the right thing and take the first steps towards making
plastic bags a thing of the past and reusable bags the standard of the future! Thank you for giving us the opportunity
to voice our opinions on this issue. If I can be of any further assistance or clarify any of my above statements, please
feel free to contact me at the email below.
23
29 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (9:56 AM)
I support, if not a ban on plastic, at least limiting the use of plastic in some way. A total ban would suit me most and I
would hope that the stores would make reusable bags for purchase readily available for those who may have left
their bags at home or in the car.
28 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (7:50 AM)
I think this is just WONDERFUL! I am so thankful to live in a city that considers these kinds of options to benefit both
the environment and the community. Plastic bags are so incredibly harmful yet so enmeshed in our culture. It's going
to take some great cities like ours to stand up and against them to remove it from our everyday lives. That one
person uses over 500 a year is just sickening... BAN THEM! Ban them all, including the paper, that is my opinion.
Reusable bags are and easy to get. There is simply no reason not to use them. Further, stores such as Vitamin
Cottage banned all bags years ago and are doing just fine! At Vitamin Cottage, they keep a variety of the boxes they
receive in their food shipments at the front of the store near the registers. Then, when customers forget their bags,
they can use these boxes for their groceries. What a great way to reduce and reuse! This cost the store nothing, and
in fact saves them money because they do not buy any bags at all. Perhaps the city could offer free or low cost
reusable bags to people as a way to introduce/initiate a ban like this - that way those who perhaps cannot afford
them, do not have them already, or are against the ban, are given what they need at least with no cost to them. One
last thing, there are also biodegradable plastic bags out there. They're usually made out of corn or some other
vegetable starch. I know Clothes Pony/Dandelion Toys in old town utilizes these. Perhaps this could be another
option for certain stores? May I also suggest the City consider switching it's own plastic bag use, such as dog doo-
doo bags, to biodegradable plastic instead? THANK YOU for your consideration!
27 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (6:57 AM)
I would strongly support any measures to reduce the occurance of single-use plastic bags, including an outright ban
on their use for shopping in Fort Collins. Thank you for your efforts!
26 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (6:55 AM)
I like a fee, and just start with grocery stores. Later on you could add next level usage category with extra time to
implement. My background is retail IT; it would not be that hard for grocery store to deal with fee. I have set up fees
like this for bottle deposits in multiple states at retail level. As for income effect, I would propose allocating part of fee
collection to buying reusable bags for low income residents. We were in Europe this summer, and almost every
grocery charged us around 5 cents per plastic bag used; the amount of reusable bag use seemed much higher.
25 Complete – Nov 3, 2012 (12:54 AM)
I believe that recycling both plastic and paper bags is an option as well. I recycle my paper bags to death. Even the
non-disposable bags get worn out and they need to be disposed somewhere too.
24 Complete – Nov 2, 2012 (11:10 PM)
I obtained a link via Facebook but was unable to to rate the choices on your page. I would love to see a ban on both
paper and plastic bgs, but I do not see that as a realistic approach, considering the number of plastic bgs I see being
carted out of grocery stores. I strongly support a fee on both plastic and paper bags and an educational drive to
reduce the use of these disposable bags. Judging from conversations I've had and my own occasional relapse,
24
laziness is the main reason people do not carry their own bags into stores. People need to be educated as to the
horrible environmental consequences, for sure, but it would be beneficial to give tips as to how to remember to bring
your own reusable bags into the stores. I don't have any great ideas, but I carry "Chico" bags in the front of my car for
little trips to the drug store, pet food store, and smaller purchase places, grocery sized bags in the rear of the car and
hanging on a hook just as I leave the garage for larger shopping trips. It's likely too late this year, but people could be
persuaded to give reusable bags as holiday gifts or put your gifts in reusable bags, large and small, including jewelry
and smaller gifts in reusable sandwich bags. I feel very strongly that incentive and education need to be combined in
an initial effort to raise consciousness about this issue. Oh, I mean "fee" when I say incentive. At this point, we need
to be as proactive as possible in protecting our environment. I regret the job loss and do not have any ideas as to
how to offset that, but it could be addressed also if more definitive information were provided to the public. Thank you
for moving on this. I do hope something will be done!
23 Complete – Nov 2, 2012 (11:28 AM)
we need a good way to recycle these bags, NOT another "fee" which is just another thinly disguised TAX. I know that
some communities do this but it is back to the lemming thing and cliffs, it doesn't mean it is a good idea.
22 Complete – Nov 2, 2012 (10:53 AM)
I would love to see a fee charged for the use of plastic bags or, even better, an outright ban at some point when
people adapt to bringing their own bags. Plastic bags are one of the top litter items in the world.
21 Complete – Nov 1, 2012 (9:05 PM)
http://www.plasticsindustry.org/files/about/fbf/myths%2Bfacts_grocerybags.pdf
http://savetheplasticbag.com/ReadContent667.aspx Check out the above sites.
Educating people and encouraging reuse of plastic bags is a far better path to go down vs. banning or charging a fee.
Let's get honest and real with responsible government engagement and not unsubstantiated, costly bans on the
practical use of plastic bags. Please do not go down a path that will raise expenses, discourage people from
shopping in Fort Collins and actually accomplish more harm than perceived good!
20 Complete – Nov 1, 2012 (8:10 PM)
I am amazed that we are spending time on this topic when there are so many other more vital topics to address in
this city. Banning or putting a fee on either plastic or paper bags only increases the cost to many people who already
are struggling to make ends meet. The most that will come out of this effort is more people shopping outside the city
to avoid the hassle and cost of doing business in FC. Plus the health hazards of reusable bags doesn't seem to come
up in any discussion? Reports I have read indicate it is a serious concern. The most I would support is encourage
people to be responsible with disposal and/or reuse of plastic and paper bags.
19 Complete – Nov 1, 2012 (3:45 PM)
This seems like a no-brainer to me. Single use plastic bags are a wasteful use of petroleum, they pollute the
environment and they harm wildlife. There is an easy, inexpensive alternative to them - the reusable cloth bag. How
can anyone argue with the logic?
18 Complete – Nov 1, 2012 (2:04 PM)
25
I would like to see plastic bags banned, and even paper bags that are handed out in department stores specifically,
as they are obsolete, we have reusable bags available, dozens in every thrift store and in every lost and found bin
across the city. Point being it is incredibly easy to find a reusable bag, there could even be some sort of bag drive if
the people really need it where the city requests those who have too many (Say 50 reusable bags) to donate them to
the city in order to distribute them to citizens opposed to the ban. Might seem like a silly idea, well, it is, but it could
be rather effective. And while paper bags do biodegrade, you still have to take into account the trees deforested,
water use, fossil fuel use, time and labor, etc. that is all unnecessary. Reusable bags are far more efficient and
friendly to our environment. Yes they still take up resources and all the rest, but last for far longer than disposable
bags. We have a trash island the size of Australia off the west coast of our country that is getting larger by the day,
as well as overflowing landfills throughout this country and other nations. Plastic bags do not degrade and often rip
after 1 - 3 uses, depending on how careful you are with them. Reusable bags can be used for years, and if they rip
there are means to reinforce them, it just makes a lot more sense. Just having a plastic/paper bag at a store for free
as an option will usually sway a customer to take the bag even if they don't need it or are planning on throwing it
away after this one time use from store to car, then car to house. It's unnecessary. This mindset of creating products
for just a one time use is absurd, and I believe is a large contributor to both our pollution/over-consumption problem
as well as our tendency to be incredibly needy. The citizens of our culture are each products of the environment they
live in, and if the environment is presenting practices that encourage neediness or unrealistically high expectations,
then the citizens will reflect that mindset. Banning of disposable bags are a small yet very necessary step to start
proceeding into a future where we can live in harmony with the planet that has been doing its best to serve us for
millions of years. Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback to the city, I hope to see this law come into
effect, just as I've seen it take hold in many other parts of this country over the past few years.
17 Complete – Oct 31, 2012 (7:57 PM)
Let's adpot the most effective solution for the envirnment. Vitamin Cottege here in town eliminated bags long ago,
gave away totes and if people forget, provide cartons in which they received the items which they sell.
16 Complete – Oct 29, 2012 (10:23 AM)
PLASTIC SHOULD BE BANNED AND PAPER SHOULD HAVE A CHARGE FOR USE.
15 Complete – Oct 29, 2012 (9:38 AM)
I like disposable plastic bags - I reuse them to collect dog and dispose of dog poop. I also use them as waste basket
liners. I don't believe that they contribute to any long term pollution concerns in any significant manner - especially
given the containment standards (liners etc) for modern landfills. Finally, plastic bags are inexpensive because they
use very little energy and material to manufacture. Plastic grocery bags represent only one small subset of all plastic
bags. There are also sandwich bags, yard waste bags, food storage bags, contractor barrel liners, kitchen garbage
bags etc. If the focus is on plastic grocery bags only then it would seem like a ban is simply a politically correct feel
good measure.
14 Complete – Oct 29, 2012 (7:31 AM)
The City should ban the use of both plastic and paper bags. Charging a fee for either type of bag ignores the
underlying environmental issues and favors the people who think they can pay their way out of environmental
responsibility. Some stores in FC offer cardboard merchandise boxes for customer use. This will require a behavioral
change, which some people will grumble about, but they'll adjust, just as people have changed behavior about
26
littering and recycling. Don't be tempted to confuse this issue with a personal rights issue. It's a personal
responsibility issue.
13 Complete – Oct 28, 2012 (6:20 AM)
I am in favor of any plan that goes beyond just "education." People have been enducated on this issue for years. It
took me a while to get a system going for always having a reusable bag, and it will take others a while too, but not
without the financial motive (i.e. fee) to stop using disposable.
12 Complete – Oct 25, 2012 (11:52 AM)
Banning both plastic and paper bags seems like a painless and inexpensive way to help the environment. Bringing
your own bags is an easy thing to do. It just requires establishing a new habit. I realize that some people will be upset
about the perceived attempt to regulate personal choice, or the fear that some jobs might be in jeopardy, but if we
can’t ever change, even for an overall better outcome, because someone somewhere might be effected negatively,
then we never progress.
11 Complete – Oct 24, 2012 (7:53 PM)
I urge you to take extreme action to greately reduce or stop the use of single-use bags. This is a great idea and is
long overdue.
10 Complete – Oct 24, 2012 (12:49 PM)
I use my plastic bags for a variety of purposes. I would hate, absolutely hate to have the City of Fort Collins interfere
in one more area that will only eventually cost me more tax dollars to pay for a new recycling system and the staffing
to go with it. Leave our plastic bags alone, please! And really, let's use the private sector for other recycling efforts, it
is absolutely unneccessary for the City to take over something the private sector can handle. It just puts others out of
work and increases our size of government under the umbrella of green intiatives. It also sounds like justifying a
special interest group inside the City and their pet projects. How about we ask the people what they want...not the
City sustainability staff. Thanks for asking for our feedback.
9 Complete – Oct 23, 2012 (7:28 PM)
I am on a personal mission to ban plastic bags! It is very do-able! In the best way possible. Fort collins can do it I
know we can all step up. I feel like those that complain/oppose are falling into lazy habits that can be changed. I want
everyone to wake up to the useless items they use and use and use. Plastic bags are #1! I'm SO glad I found this
website. I am very very passionate about this. Just because I know 100% it can be accomplished and the positive
effects would outweigh any negatives it seems. I do not support using plastic bags and I definitely don't think they
need to be a "staple". I will most likely be contacting you directly just to see where fort collins stands in this process. I
am just very excited to be able to give my feedback. Thank you for reading what I have to say!
8 Complete – Oct 22, 2012 (2:38 PM)
An outright ban seems like a better choice than collecting a bag fee. This option gets at the heart of saving energy,
resources, and reducing negative impacts to the environment. We could certainly learn some lessons from other
municipalities that have implemented such bans.
27
7 Complete – Oct 21, 2012 (10:44 PM)
I recommend banning or charging extra when people forget to bring along their re-usable bags for groceries. I keep a
box of reusable bags in my car for shopping purposes. If I had to pay 25 cents per plastic or paper bag, you bet I
would never forget.
6 Complete – Oct 20, 2012 (2:40 PM)
I weighted 10 bags ~ 60 gm=2 oz -> about 640 bags per gallon of gas. I like using the reusable bags because they
carry more, but I tend to leave them in the car.
5 Complete – Oct 20, 2012 (2:34 PM)
first bag free Charge for a second and each additional bag if a person is shopping for a few items he may forget to
bring a bag.
4 Complete – Oct 16, 2012 (12:42 PM)
Let's work together to encourage the use of reusable bags. I've noticed the farmer's market vendors (Saturdays) are
a big user of bags for their customers. They rarely even ask if a customer has reusable bags. What if there was a
booth at the market with reusable bags available for people to use or add it to the existing booths (that sell market
bucks?)
3 Complete – Oct 13, 2012 (10:25 AM)
There is just no good reason to not stop using plastic bags, other than short term convenience. There are huge long
term consequences for their use, that frankly just aren't worth the benefit. When I was in Ireland a few years ago, I
was charged 25 cents per bag. It was a huge wake up call on how easy it would be to curb their use and it in no way
ruined my experience abroad. Fort Collins please consider being a leader on this issue. You like to think you are
progressive, but it seems like you are always years behind truly progressive cities like Madison and Portland. If it
creates a bit of inconvenience for people while they adjust, they will get over it eventually. Does the city really fear a
mass exodus to Loveland, because they still allow plastic bags? There are just no good arguments for their use over
re-usable bags.
2 Complete – Oct 13, 2012 (8:08 AM)
solve multiple problems don't create more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwI2d4bK5Ug
1 Complete – Oct 13, 2012 (5:28 AM)
Hi Susie - Nice webpage! Several comments: 1. I like the idea of charging a fee on both plastic and paper bags best,
followed by a ban on plastic bags and a fee on paper bags. 2. "Enact" is spelled incorrectly a couple of times on the
web page. 3. On this feedback page, you might want to ask people to rank the various choices you provide on the
main page - you might get more usable info back that way.
1
Director
Division
Denver Department of Environmental Health
200 W. 14th, Suite 310
Denver, CO 80204
720-865-5458
City Council Regular Meeting
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
March 18, 2013
First Reading:
An Ordinance to Apply a Fee on
Disposable Grocery Shopping Bags
ATTACHMENT 4
2
At the Nov. 27, 2012 Work Session, staff was asked
to continue examining the City’s ability to apply a
fee on both plastic and paper shopping bags at
grocery stores.
Staff proposes a 10-cent/bag fee be charged.
3
US communities that have enacted a fee on plastic
and paper bags include:
• Washington DC (5 cents)
• Boulder, CO (10 cents)
• San Francisco (10 cents)
• LA County (10 cents)
• Montgomery County, MD (5 cents)
Grocery stores generate 60% of disposable bags
Estimated 22 million used each year in Fort Collins
Single-Use Disposable Bags
4
• Motivate shoppers to use fewer plastic or paper
bags and bring a durable carryout bag to stores
for their purchases
• Increase the community’s ability to meet goals
to divert more trash from landfills and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
• Reduce stray litter and pollution in the
community, and globally, including plastic
bags in trees and waterways
Adopting a fee on bags is expected to:
5
Charges a 10-cent fee on both plastic bags and
paper sacks used in the community’s grocery (food)
stores.
Grocery stores are defined as retail establishments
that operate year-round and sell a full line of food
stuffs. It does not include:
• temporary food vendors
• gas station/convenience stores for whom food
sales represents less than 2% of gross profit
Ordinance Details
6
City revenues used for:
• education on impacts of disposable bags to
environment
• provide reusable bags to citizens
• litter clean-up
• more bag recycling opportunities
• program administration costs
Splits bag-fee revenue between the City (60%) and
the grocery stores (40%).
Ordinance Details (continued)
7
Grocery store revenues used for:
• offset new administrative costs
• provide educational information and signage
about the disposable bag fee to customers
• train staff in the implementation, collection, and
administration of the fee
Ordinance Details (continued)
8
TEXT HERE
Budget Year 2013
(Oct-Dec)
2014 2015 2016
# disposable
bags affected
by fee
2.7 M 9.8 M 5.0 M 2.5 M
Fees remitted
to City (60%) $ 165 K $ 586 K $ 298 K $152 K
Fees remitted
to grocery
stores (40%)
$110 K $ 391 K $199 K $101 K
TOTAL $274,286 $976,979 $497,130 $252,961
Revenue Projections from Fee
9
• Starts October 1, 2013
• New .25% FTE in Sales Tax Department to provide
oversight for grocery stores to collect the 10-
cent/bag fee and remit 60% to City
• New .5 FTE in Environmental Services to carry
out educational program
• Anticipated to reduce use of disposable bags by
at least 50% initially, and about 80% by 2016
Implementation
10
• Website fcgov.com/plasticbags
• Newsletter and newspaper articles
• Presentations to AQAB and NRAB
• Meetings with stakeholder groups
• Public open house November 8
Letters sent to Grocery Stores’ regulatory and
administration offices in November, January, and
February
Public Outreach & Involvement, Fall 2012
11
12
Questions?
ORDINANCE NO. 046, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS TO ESTABLISH A DISPOSABLE BAG FEE
WHEREAS, the City, through its policies, programs, and laws, supports efforts to reduce the
amount of waste deposited into the landfill and to pursue waste minimization as a long term goal by
emphasizing waste prevention efforts; and
WHEREAS, the use of single-use disposable bags has severe impacts on the environment
on a local and global scale, including greenhouse gas emissions, litter, harm to wildlife, atmospheric
acidification, water consumption and solid waste generation; and
WHEREAS, despite recycling and voluntary solutions to control pollution from disposable
carryout bags, many disposable single-use bags ultimately are disposed of in landfills, litter the
environment, block storm drains and endanger wildlife; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins consumers use approximately twenty-two (22) million disposable
bags from food stores each year; and
WHEREAS, the City’s taxpayers bear the costs associated with the effects of disposable bags
on the solid waste stream, drainage, litter and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a disposable bag fee is necessary to
address the environmental problems associated with disposable bags and to relieve City taxpayers
of the costs incurred by the City in connection with the use of disposable bags; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that the fee imposed by this ordinance will help offset
the costs associated with the use of disposable bags in the City and help fund the mitigation,
educational, replacement, and administrative efforts of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as findings of the
City Council.
Section 2. That Chapter 12, Article VII of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of a new Division 3 which shall read in its entirety as follows:
ARTICLE VII
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Division 3
Sec. 12-133. Definitions.
The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them
below unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Disposable Bag shall mean a bag that is not a reusable bag. Disposable Bag shall not
include:
(1) bags used by consumers inside stores to:
a. package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy or
small hardware items;
b. contain or wrap frozen foods, meat, or fish;
c. contain or wrap flowers, potted plants, or other items where
dampness may be a problem; or
d. contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods.
(2) bags used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other
purchased items when placed in a reusable bag;
(3) bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs; or
(4) newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags, or bags sold
in packages containing multiple bags for uses such as food storage, garbage, pet
waste, or yard waste bags.
Food store shall mean a retail establishment or business located within City limits
in a permanent building, operating year round, that is a full-line, self-service market
and which sells a line of staple foodstuffs, meats, produce or dairy products or other
perishable items. Food store shall not include:
(1) temporary vending establishments for fruits, vegetables, packaged meats and
dairy;
(2) vendors at farmers' markets or other temporary events;
(3) businesses at which foodstuffs are an incidental part of the business; or
For the purposes of subsection (3) above, food sales will be considered to be
“incidental” if such sales comprise no more than two (2) percent of the business’s
gross sales in the City as measured by the dollar value of food sales as a percentage
of the dollar value of total sales at any single location.
Reusable Bag shall mean a bag that:
(1) is designed and manufactured to withstand repeated uses over a period of
time;
-2-
(2) is made from a material that can be cleaned and disinfected regularly;
(3) is at least two and one-quarter (2.25) mils thick if made from plastic;
(4) has a minimum lifetime of seventy (75) uses; and
(5) has the capability of carrying a minimum of eighteen (18) pounds.
Disposable bag fee or fee shall mean a City fee imposed and required to be paid by
each consumer making a purchase from a food store for each disposable bag used
during the purchase, the proceeds of which are to be used for the purposes specified
in Section 12-135(7).
Sec. 12-134. Disposable bag fee requirements.
(1) For each disposable bag provided to a customer, all food stores shall collect
from customers, and customers shall pay, at the time of purchase, a disposable bag
Fee of ten cents ($0.10.)
(2) All food stores shall record the number of disposable bags provided and the
total amount of disposable bag fees charged on the customer transaction receipt.
(3) No food store shall refund to a customer any part of the disposable bag fee,
nor shall any food store advertise or state to customers that any part of the disposable
bag fee will be refunded to the customer.
(4) No food store shall exempt any customer from any part of the disposable bag
fee for any reason except as stated in Section 12-139.
Sec. 12-135. Retention, remittance, and transfer of the disposable bag fee.
(1) A food store may retain forty (40) percent of each disposable bag fee
collected, which is the “retained percent.”
(2) The retained percent may only be used by the food store to:
a. provide educational information about the disposable bag fee to
customers;
b. provide the signage required by Section 12-136;
c. train staff in the implementation and administration of the fee;
d. improve or alter infrastructure to allow for the implementation,
collection, administration of the fee;
e. collect, account for and remit the fee to the City;
f. develop and display informational signage to inform
consumers about the fee;
-3-
g. encourage the use of reusable bags or promote recycling of plastic
bags; and
h. improve infrastructure to increase plastic bag recycling.
(3) The amount of the disposable bag fee collected by a food store in excess of
the retained percent shall be paid to the City and shall be used only as set forth in
subsection (7) of this Section to mitigate the effects of disposable bags in the City.
(4) A food store shall pay and the City shall collect all disposable bag fees. The
City shall provide the necessary forms for food stores to file with the City, to
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Article.
(5) If payment of any amount to the City is not received on or before the
applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to the amount due
as described in Section 12-139.
(6) The disposable bag fee shall be administered by the City Manager. The City
Manager is authorized to adopt administrative rules to implement this Division,
including, but not limited to, prescribing forms and providing methods of payment
and collection.
(7) Revenues received by the City from the disposable bag fee shall be used only
for expenditures that are intended to mitigate the effects of disposable bags,
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. administrative costs associated with developing and implementing
the disposable bag fee.
b. activities of the City to:
1. provide reusable carryout bags to residents and visitors;
2. educate residents, businesses, and visitors about the impact of
disposable bags on the City’s environmental health, the
importance of reducing the number of single-use carryout
bags entering the waste stream, and the expenses associated
with mitigating the effects of single-use bags on the City’s
drainage system, transportation system, wildlife and
environment;
3. fund programs and infrastructure that allow the Fort Collins
community to reduce waste associated with disposable bags;
4. purchase and install equipment designed to minimize bag
pollution, including, but not limited to, recycling containers
and waste receptacles associated with disposable bags;
5. fund community cleanup events and other activities that
reduce trash associated with disposable bags;
-4-
6. mitigate the effects of disposable bags on the City’s drainage
system, transportation system, wildlife and environment;
7. maintain a public website that educates residents on the
progress of waste reduction efforts associated with disposable
bags; and
8. fund the administration of the disposable bag fee program.
c. No disposable bag fees collected in accordance with this Article shall
be used for general government purposes.
Sec. 12-136. Required signage for food stores.
Every food store subject to the collection of the disposable bag fee shall display a
sign in a location outside or inside of the business, viewable by customers, alerting
customers to the disposable bag fee.
Sec. 12-137. Exemptions.
A food store may provide a disposable bag to a customer at no charge if the customer
provides evidence that he or she is a participant in a federal or state Food Assistance
Program.
Sec. 12-138. Audits.
(a) Each food store shall maintain accurate and complete records of the
disposable bag fees collected, the number of disposable bags provided to customers,
the form and recipients of any notice required pursuant to this Article, and any
underlying records, including any books, accounts, invoices, or other records
necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of such records. It shall be the
duty of each food store to keep and preserve all such documents and records,
including any electronic information, for a period of three years from the end of the
calendar year of such records.
(b) If requested, each food store shall make its records available for audit by the
City during regular business hours for the City to verify compliance with the
provisions of this Article. All such information shall be treated as confidential
commercial documents.
Sec. 12-139. Failure to comply with disposable bag fee requirements.
(a) If any food store fails, neglects, or refuses to collect the disposable bag fee,
or underpays the disposable bag fee, the City shall make an estimate of the fees due,
based on available information, and shall add thereto penalties, interest, and any
additions to the fees. The City shall serve upon the delinquent food store personally,
by electronic mail or by first class mail directed to the last address of the food store
on file with the City, written notice of such estimated fees, penalties, and interest,
-5-
constituting a Notice of Final Determination, Assessment, and Demand for Payment,
(also referred to as “Notice of Final Determination”) due and payable within twenty
(20) calendar days after the date of the notice. The food store may request a hearing
on the assessment as provided in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code.
(b) If payment of any amount of the disposable bag fee to the City is not received
on or before the applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to
the amount due in the amount of:
(1) a penalty of ten (10) percent of total due;
(2) interest charge of one (1) percent of the total penalty per month.
Sec. 12-140. Violations and penalties.
Any food store found guilty of violating any provision of this Article, whether by
acting in a manner declared to be unlawful or by failing to act as required, commits
a civil infraction and is subject to the penalty provisions of subsection 1-15(f).
Section 3. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective October 1, 2013. The
City Manager shall develop and implement the administrative and financial processes for the
collection of the fee between the effective date of this Ordinance and October 1, 2013.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
Section 5. This Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the City, and covers matters of local concern.
-6-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-7-
special watering
schedule. Max. of
1.25” per week. No
watering on Monday
and between the
hours of 10 a.m. and
6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule. Max. of
1.00” per week. No
watering on Monday
thru Thursday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule for only
select fields. Max.
of 0.75” per week.
No watering on
Monday thru
Thursday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
No exceptions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 10. That item number 9, “Water Fountains” on page 3 of the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan attached to Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to
be entitled “Water features,” and to read as follows.
Response Response Response Response
Session
May
• May 7 - City
Council Staff
Report
• Continue to
monitor water
supply and
demand triggers to
assess potential
Response Level
change
• May 16 - Water
Board Update
Extensive Public Outreach and Education
6,110,000 $
8,020,000
$650,000
$330,000
1,440,000
6,550,000 $
(
(
ustomer outreach
ction Leve
rating revenu
pected to be l
inimizes the
mated revenu
te increases.
Level 1
15,270,000
$7,730,000
$0
$165,000
$1,330,000
24,495,000
$2,055,000)
$2,055,000)
h at Level 1; 75%
el
ue is forecas
less than the
revenue los
ue losses for
Level 2
$14,180,000
$7,070,000
$0
$82,500
$1,220,000
$22,552,500
($3,997,500)
($897,500)
% reduction at Le
sted to be $2
e budgeted am
s above a Re
each rate cl
Level 3
$13,120,000
$6,500,000
$0
$0
$1,130,000
$20,750,000
($5,800,000)
($980,000)
evel 2; 100% at L
6.55M. Thi
mount at
esponse
ass at each
Level 4
$12,130,000
$5,970,000
$0
$0
$1,040,000
$19,140,000
($7,410,000
($980,000
Level 3.
is
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
0)
ATTACHMENT 1