HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/21/2001 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2001, AMENDING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 42
DATE: August 21,2001
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:Mike Smith/Jim Hibbard
Bob Smith/Susan Hayes
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2001, Amending Chapter 10 and Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Reflect the Adoption of a New Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin
and Clarifying the Application of the Provisions of Chapter 10 to Floodplains in the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Canal Importation Basin Master Plan has identified $51.5 million in capital improvements
that are necessary to address flooding in the Basin. Funding of the Master Plan will be from
stormwater fees collected in the City. During the bi-annual budget process, specific projects will
be scheduled and funds appropriated based upon a city-wide prioritization of drainage projects.
There is no financial impact as a result of the revision of the floodplain regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
Chapter 10 of the City Code includes provisions pertaining to the administration of the
regulations in regard to the floodplains that have been defined in the City. Included in the
current City Code is a provision that the General Manager of the Utilities shall administer the
floodplain regulations and shall enforce the floodplain regulations on properties located in
floodplains adopted by City Council, in areas of known flooding, and in areas that have the
potential to experience flooding. This latter provision of potential flooding areas means that
once a floodplain area has been determined the General Manager must start administering that
area under the provisions of the floodplain code even before formal adoption of the floodplain
and the applicable floodplain regulations by City Council.
The proposed ordinance eliminates the requirement that the General Manager of the Utilities
shall administer or enforce the floodplain regulations before adoption of the applicable
floodplain regulations by City Council. However, the proposed ordinance does recommend that
in areas where the floodplain is expanded due to a technical analysis resulting from the
implementation of new policy or new design criteria, the General Manager of the Utilities shall
apply the floodplain regulations with regard to new development, critical facilities, and
DATE: August 21, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 42
hazardous materials on an interim basis. This change to the Code allows for the enforcement of
the floodplain regulations on significant new development that would be subject to flood hazards
and allows for a comprehensive review of the applicable floodplain regulations resulting in and
then the adoption of the final floodplain regulations for that floodplain.
In regard to the Canal Importation Basin, other changes to the Code resulting from the adoption
of the Ordinance would also limit the enforcement of the floodplain regulations in the Basin to
new development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials. The revision of the floodplain
regulations as they apply to the Canal Importation Basin would become effective after Second
Reading of the Ordinance or on September 14, 2001. After Second Reading, staff would initiate
a public process to perform a comprehensive review of the floodplain regulations that would
involve public outreach to determine the appropriate floodplain regulations for the Canal
Importation basin and would make recommendations to City Council. Staff expects that review
to take about 9-12 months.
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
The Ordinance would amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to replace the 1980 master plan for the
Canal Importation Basin with an updated plan. The Canal Importation Basin is a highly
urbanized area encompassing approximately 3,200 acres in west central Fort Collins. Most of
this Basin was developed prior to drainage criteria being in place. Therefore, drainage channels
are too small or non-existent, irrigation canals and detention ponds overflow, streets and
intersections flood, and there are many structures in the 100-year floodplain that are exposed to
flood damage.
The total estimated cost of the proposed storm drainage improvements in the updated Canal
Importation Basin Master Plan is $51.5 million. Due to the highly urban character of this basin,
the recommended solutions are also highly urban or structural in character. In general, projects
include construction or enlargement of detention ponds, construction of open channels and storm
sewers, and enlargement of road culverts.
The net benefit provided by the projects is over $109 million in today's dollars. Comparing this
to the estimated cost of implementing the proposed drainage projects, the benefit-cost ratio for
the master plan is 2:1. Although the cost of the Plan is high, its effectiveness is shown by its
highly favorable benefit-cost ratio.
The Master Plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input. A technical review
team, consisting of City staff from key departments and representatives from the ditch
companies and CSU, has provided input. Staff in the Golf, Parks and Recreation, and Natural
Resources departments have been directly involved in the review of the proposed projects. The
Water, Golf, Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, and Planning and Zoning Boards have
had an opportunity to comment on the Plan. There have been three public open houses.
Meetings have taken place with the Chamber of Commerce, neighborhood associations and
property owners in the Basin. City Council discussed the Master Plan at the May 22, 2001 Study
Session.
As part of the Master Plan, a 100-year floodplain map has been prepared and is currently being
regulated per current City Code. Council's action will be adoption of the Master Plan and
DATE: August 21, 2001 3 ITEM NUMBER: 42
inclusion of the Canal Importation Basin in the floodplain section of the Code for the floodplain
regulation provisions pertaining to new development, critical facilities and hazardous materials.
Staff sent out over 100 floodplain information letters to individual property owners and worked
with those property owners on specific project proposals. There has been significant public
feedback regarding the application of the existing floodplain regulations. Staff has heard
concerns over the notice of the enforcement and applicability of the floodplain regulations to the
basin. As a result of this feedback staff is making the recommendation to revise the floodplain
code as described above and perform a comprehensive review of the regulations.
There has been additional public feedback about the prioritization of projects and which projects
will be done first. The current project schedule is based on both the Old Town and Canal
Importation Basins being high priorities, particularly those areas hardest hit by the 1997 storm.
BACKGROUND:
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
Chapter 10 of the City Code includes provisions pertaining to the administration of the
regulations in regard to the floodplains that have been defined in the City. The purpose of the
floodplain regulations is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions.
Included in the current City Code is a provision that the General Manager of the Utilities shall
administer the floodplain regulations and shall enforce the floodplain regulations on properties
located in floodplains adopted by City Council, in areas of known flooding, and in areas that
have the potential to experience flooding. This latter provision of potential flooding areas means
that once a floodplain area has been determined, the General Manager must start administering
that area under the provisions of the floodplain code even before formal adoption of the
floodplain and the applicable floodplain regulations by City Council.
The proposed ordinance would eliminate the requirement that the General Manager of the
Utilities shall administer the floodplain regulations before adoption by City Council. However,
the proposed ordinance does authorize enforcement of certain provisions for areas where the
floodplain is expanded due to a technical analysis resulting from the implementation of new
policy or new design criteria on new development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials on
an interim basis. This change to the Code allows for the enforcement of the floodplain
regulations on significant new development that would be subject to flood hazards and allows
for a review of the applicable floodplain regulations resulting in the eventual adoption of the
final floodplain regulations for that area. This process would include the following steps:
• Based on a solid technical analysis, City Staff determines the floodplain, its boundaries and
characteristics based on new policy or new design criteria adopted by City Council.
• For those areas outside of the already adopted floodplain staff would enforce the critical
facilities, hazardous materials, and new development provisions of the floodplain
regulations.
• City staff makes recommendations on the regulations for that floodplain that was changed
based on a review of the floodplain regulations, the characteristics of that floodplain and
comments received during public outreach.
• City Council adopts the regulations applicable for the floodplain.
DATE: August 21, 2001 4 ITEM NUMBER: 42
• City staff enforces the floodplain regulations adopted by City Council.
The proposed code revision also creates a section that specifically identifies the floodplains that
have been adopted by City Council.
In regard to the Canal Importation Basin, the change to the Code would remove the requirement
for the enforcement of the floodplain regulations except for those provisions that pertain to new
development, critical facilities, and hazardous materials. The revision of the floodplain
regulations as they apply to the Canal Importation Basin would become effective after second
reading of the ordinance or around September 14, 2001. After second reading staff would
initiate a public process to perform a comprehensive review of the floodplain regulations that
would involve public outreach to determine the appropriate floodplain regulations for the Canal
Importation Basin and would make recommendations to City Council. Staff expects that review
to take about 9-12 months.
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
The Canal Importation Basin is a highly-urbanized area encompassing approximately 3,200
acres in west central Fort Collins. Most of this Basin was developed prior to drainage criteria
being in place. Therefore, drainage channels are too small or non-existent, irrigation canals and
detention ponds overflow, streets and intersections flood, and there are many structures in the
100-year floodplain and exposed to flood damage.
For drainage Basin master plans, the City uses the 100-year storm to identify problems and has
adopted the policy to provide 100-year protection only if the benefit of projects outweigh their
cost. This means it is possible to provide less than 100-year protection. However, the
regulatory floodplain is still mapped using the 100-year storm and property and structures
remaining in the floodplain after projects are built are subject to the floodplain regulations. The
enforcement of floodplain regulations ensures new problems are not created with the
development or redevelopment of areas in the floodplain.
In 1999, a higher rainfall standard was adopted based on a technical analysis of rainfall patterns
in the region. This higher rainfall has resulted in higher runoff and larger floodplains. This
requires all master plans to be updated to reflect the higher rainfall, and reevaluate the needed
capital improvements. The Canal Importation Master Plan is the first to be completed since the
adoption of the higher rainfall standard.
Due to the highly-urban character of this Basin, the recommended solutions are also highly
urban or structural in character. The purpose of these capital improvements is to correct the
problems created in the past when development took place without consideration for storm
runoff. In general, projects include construction or enlargement of detention ponds, construction
of open channels and storm sewers, and enlargement of road culverts.
The overall plan reduces or eliminates the majority of damages caused by flooding in the Basin.
Structures in the 100-year floodplain will be reduced from 704 to 65. Flooding along W.
Elizabeth will be reduced, but not eliminated. Flows onto CSU at Elizabeth and Shields will be
reduced by over half.
r
DATE: August 21,2001 5 ITEM NUMBER: 42
To the extent possible, the proposed projects provide opportunities to enhance and expand
wetlands and natural habitat areas to improve the quality of storm runoff. The New Mercer
Canal project is the one major project which will drastically alter the existing vegetation and
ditch corridor. The improvements to the New Mercer Canal will provide the desired flood
protection while leaving the Larimer County No. 2 Canal virtually untouched.
The total estimated cost of the proposed storm drainage improvements is $51.5 million. This is
an increase compared to the cost to build the remaining projects in the original Master Plan.
Two factors contribute to the cost increase: the increased rainfall and expansion of the scope of
the Master Plan to address additional local problem areas that were identified during the
development of the Master Plan.
Table 1 summarizes the damages due to current flooding and the damages expected when all
improvements are built. These amounts do not include other costs such as damage to public
infrastructure, emergency response, clean-up, etc.
Table 1
Current Damages Damages After Improvements
(in millions of dollars) (in millions of dollars)
Single 100-year Event $25 $2.38
Average Annual Damages $6.84 $0.84
Value of Average Annual
Damages in Today's Dollars $125 $15.3
(over 50 years)
The net benefit provided by the improvements is over $109 million in today's dollars.
Comparing this to the estimated cost of implementing the proposed drainage improvements, the
benefit-cost ratio for the Master Plan is 2:1. Put another way, the "rate of return" for the Master
Plan is 11.6%.
The Master Plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input. A technical review
team, consisting of City staff from key departments and representatives from the ditch
companies and CSU, has provided input. Staff from the Golf, Parks and Recreation, and Natural
Resources departments have been directly involved in the review of the proposed projects. The
Water, Golf, Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, and Planning and Zoning Boards have
had an opportunity to comment on the plan. There have been three public open houses.
Meetings have taken place with the Chamber of Commerce, neighborhood associations and
property owners in the Basin. City Council discussed the Master Plan at the May 22, 2001 study
session.
The Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan seeks to balance the interests of the
community by proposing to:
• provide flood protection at the 100-year level for the majority of the Basin;
• reduce the incidence of overtopping and flooding of major streets and irrigation
canals; and,
• to the extent possible, enhance and expand wetlands and natural habitat areas to
improve the quality of storm runoff.
DATE: August 21,2001 6 ITEM NUMBER: 42
Although the cost of the Plan is high, its effectiveness is shown by its highly favorable benefit-
cost ratio.
Attached is a staff memo and documentation about the Master Plan. The majority of information
was presented with the May 22 study session packet. All new information since the study
session is included on yellow paper.
ORDINANCE NO. 121,2001
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 10 AND CHAPTER 26 OF THE CITY CODE TO
REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF A NEW MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
FOR THE CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN AND CLARIFYING THE
APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 TO
FLOODPLAINS IN THE CITY
WHEREAS, Section 26-543(a)(8) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins adopts by
reference, and declares as a part of the City Code, a master drainage plan for the area now known
as the Canal Importation Basin, (the `Basin") which plan is entitled "Diversion of Stormwater
Runoff through Irrigation Canals from Mulberry Street to Spring Creek", prepared by Resource
Consultants, Inc., dated July 1980 (the "1980 Plan,,); and
WHEREAS, City staff has developed an updated master drainage plan for the Canal
Importation Basin, entitled the "Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan",prepared by Anderson
Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 2001 (the "Updated Plan,,),which Updated Plan is on file
in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and
WHEREAS, the Updated Plan has been reviewed by the City' s Water Board, Golf Board,
Parks and Recreation Board,Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Planning and Zoning Board,
and comments received from these boards have been considered in the final preparation of the
Updated Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the Updated Plan to the City Council for review at its study
session of May 22, 2001, and received direction to present the Updated Plan to the Council for its
consideration at a regular meeting of the Council; and
WHEREAS the Updated Plan identifies significant potential flooding damage in the Basin
that could occur due to undersized or non-existent drainage channels,overtopping irrigation canals
and detention ponds, flooding streets and intersections, and many structures in the 100-year
floodplain; and
WHEREAS, the improvements recommended in the Updated Plan would provide flood
protection at the 100-year level for the majority of the Basin and reduce the incidence of overtopping
and flooding of major streets and irrigation canals; and
WHEREAS, to the extent possible, the improvements recommended in the Updated Plan
enhance and expand wetlands and natural habitat areas to improve the quality of storm runoff; and
WHEREAS,the overall benefits of the Updated Plan outweigh the cost ofthe improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the amendment of City Code Section 26-543(a)(8) so as to provide a current
reference to the Updated Plan instead of the 1980 Plan will assist the public in identifying the
appropriate plan associated with the Canal Importation Basin; and
WHEREAS,the 1980 Plan did not delineate a floodplain in the Basin, while the Updated
Plan does delineate such a floodplain; and
WHEREAS,the City Code currently requires that the General Manager of the Utilities(the
°Director°) apply the requirements of Chapter 10 Article II of the City Code, dealing with flood
hazard areas, in any area known to the Director to have experienced flooding in the past during a
base flood or to have the potential for flooding during a base flood, regardless of whether a
floodplain study,report or other designation has occurred; and
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the foregoing City Code requirement,the Director began
applying all of the requirements of Chapter 10,Article II to the floodplains identified in the Updated
Plan; and
WHEREAS,the City Council is in the process of considering the proper application of the
flood prevention and protection requirements of Chapter 10,Article II of the City Code to the Basin;
and
WHEREAS,all of the floodplains identified in Section 10-19 will be periodically updated
based on new policy and or design criteria and such floodplains will be larger than those adopted in
the previous studies; and
WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to amend Chapter 10,Article II to limit the extent to
which the Updated Plan will affect the redevelopment of property within the Basin, and the extent
to which the periodic expansion of floodplains will affect the development and redevelopment of
properties in all of the expanded floodplains; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons,the City Council wishes to amend Chapters 10 and
26 of the City Code as set forth herein, in order to: (1)reflect the approval of the Updated Plan as
the master plan for the Canal Importation Basin, and (2)provide for the initial application of the
requirements of Chapter 10 to certain activities in that Basin and to other basins where technical
analysis based on new policy or new design criteria has been completed which expands the
floodplain.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 10-19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
so as to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 10-19. Floodplain designation.
(a) The Flood Insurance Study dated January 1979, including any
revisions or amendments thereto,completed for the city by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency("FEI,ffl forthe purpose of identifying floodplain areas,with
accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Article. The Flood
Insurance Study is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
(b) The Eetmeii mmy adept additional floodplain studies or reportsUMNOW
declared 4tenrto be part of this Article,
prevideda
d*,at-any differences in floodplain delineation between such additional
studies or reports and the Flood Insurance Rate Map shall be resolved by applying
those provisions which result in a broader floodplain delineation. orithen;
itul technical analysis resultau[,the re fmt muntc ftlte ROOOR J` '"
�s�
ed us the plans listed 6eloito tlieeztttittliat c3ii i6+
erzienlpro�ect results m a .'. l��ti
thtthefl3odp2aindelmeation rinclri ddified1lbbift1" d �It 1�
fi��;k��Ja�allirig°flagdplain delineation for the.putpo of#4,gYrtC�,u� A copy of
snehft studies or reports shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Dopt Aemtatien,ofanymodificationot'.a.floodplakAdli#eationoptttsuznttautl►is
sutition shallbe'on file ine permanent records of the Office.o€lJtilitySewices.
(1<) McClellandsandMailCreekMajorDramagewayPlanpreparedl yC'c�rn 11
Consulting Company;aad John S:Gnth,PE,dated_ 8
•,(2) . Foothills Drainage Basin Drainage.Master Plan; prepared,-by-Resource
Consultants,Inc., dated February 1981
(3) Dry Creek Drainageway Planning, prepared by Gingery Associates,Inc.,
dated January 1980;,
(4) West Vine Drainage Basin Major. Drainage-Way Plan,. ,prepared,i by
Engineering Professionals,Inc.;dated DecembOr,1980.
.(5) Spring Creek Master'.,Dr Plan,; prep b .
A- kFaittg
Professionals, Inc.,,datedMarch,.1988;
;(0)..=Fossil Creek Drainage !Basin :Master=°Drainageway Plannut Shady?
prepared by Simons,Li and Associates;Inc.,dated Augu4t:l9&2 surd
wOld,Town Master Drainage,Basin-Ian,=preparedbyltesourceConsaltants
w_ ..
&Engineers,Inc.,dated January 7 4993.
(8) Canal Importation MasterDrainage Plan,prepared by Anderson Consulting
Engineers, Inc.,dated April 2001.
Section 2. That Section 10-20 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended so as to read in its entirety as follows:
See. 10-20. Application to certain lands.
(a)
the eit7`EY
(b)
floodplains defined by titis 26dfiele shall eenferm to and meet all the
` . ....
d cotl titian o cni�c l faeiWLe bM ' �,�0 MMOM
tkOn-t"the sforage Ofhazard i tei l set�f8 r m n F
5 shalLapgIy to any andall deueIopilt tEaarid ed ft..tom
pig -e ',,"tl at occurs within•the floodplamshtli tt are'ctelineat =the
��mportation, Master Dtamage'.=1'lan,`�pi'epa'red :by�,�+ tsan
04nsulttiig Engineers; Inc:;=dated.4pri1:20 1, Sdc- ,ro]ibiUons si ll
also3p1} toYany and all development,andsdeuelhp3nent tl►at ntcrirs
o%d o�EMA'`flood insurance studvas.referrdd_ m RTt1��9,�a��Ytl
de'�tifiarea mapped as;p�t of and citywdesi�iiatedflootlplatn
eistabltshed Ip but withtn an area detemuned, b
t i Ysis`6sing policies or design onteriii jppm b t
Council,to have the potential for flooding during a base flood However;
ly al of the provisions of this Article shall apply to any new development
in;the areas referenced-.in this subsection for.swhich an �dverall
development plan, project development plan,;or final plan,is„required
under=the,eity's Land Use Code and has nbt:been approved V*,to
S,"epjeinbdr,,14,2001,if such"development or redevelopmentire It irE
(x} ,theplattingorsutldivisionof;land;:o=
the construction or placeinentrof any ne u.building.on a*ot*,#Om
as an accessory or addition to an existing building.
(c) If lands located outside the city limits are included within the
floodplain, the flood fringe or the floodway, the requirements of this
Article shall apply to such lands upon annexation.
Section 3. That Section 10-36(10)of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
deleted.
Sec. 10-36. Administrator's powers and duties.
The duties and responsibilities of the Director,as defined in§10-16,
shall include but are not limited to:
(19) Requiring that the pro-visions of this Artiele be aPF'ied to my
shtteture leeated in an week of the eity not MOPFed as part e
FENIA's Flood irksuranee Study referred to in §10 19(a) mid not
to §10 19(b), but in an area kmwn to the Bireeter to have
. . meed Reading in the past during a base flood or to lift�e the
Fetential for fleading during a base flood.
Section 4. That Section 26-543(a)(8)of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
See. 26-543. Master drainage plans.
(a) Master drainage plans are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part
of this Article for the following stormwater basins of the city:
(8)
Nittiberry Street to Spring Greek, prepared by Resettree
., dated ittly 1989 Canal Importation-Master
Drainage Plan,prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers,Inc.,
dated April 2001.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 21 st
day of August,A.D.2001,and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of September,
A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 4th day of September, A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STAFF MEMO
4aUtilities
light S power • stormwater • wastewater • water
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2001
TO: Mayor Martinez and City Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager
THRU: Mike Smith, General Utilities Manager
Jim Hibbard, Water Technical and Environmental Services Manager {
FROM: Susan Duba Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer,Master Planning 14 ^
SUBJECT: Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan
At the May 22, 2001 Work Session, Council was presented information on the Canal
Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan. A packet of material was provided giving
technical and public process information. The bulk of this information has not changed
since the May Work Session,however it has been included here for ease of reference. To
aid your review, all new information(this memo and additional exhibit material)is
provided on yellow colored paper.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH
Since the May work session there has been additional public outreach, including:
• A follow-up letter to property owners in the floodplain. This provided answers to
frequently asked questions generated from the first notification.
• A meeting with the Local Legislative Affairs Committee of the Fort Collins Area
Chamber of Commerce.
• A public open house which presented information on the master plan, funding
options, and floodplain regulations. A representative from FEMA was also there to
answer questions about flood insurance.
• A neighborhood meeting with the City Park Neighborhood Association
(Mountain/Oak area).
• A meeting with The Group realty company to update their realtors about the
floodplain regulations.
• Over 100 contacts with individual property owners and realtors requesting
additional floodplain information on specific properties.
There has been significant public feedback regarding the application of the existing
floodplain regulations. Staff has heard concerns over the notice of the enforcement and
applicability of the floodplain regulations to the basin. As a result of this feedback staff is
700 Wood St. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 227-6700 • FAX (970) =-6619 • TDD (970) 224-6007
e-mail: utilitiesri fcgov.com . www.fcgov.com/utilitiee
making the recommendation to revise the floodplain code and perform a comprehensive
review of the regulations. —�
This additional outreach did not generate significant comments about the projects
proposed in the master plan, and support is shown for expediting the construction of
projects in order to reduce the floodplain and eliminate the floodpWn regulations.
The City Park Neighborhood has raised a concern about the prioritization of the projects
in the Canal Importation Basin, specifically questioning why the Mulberry Corridor
projects are not higher on the project schedule given the large number of structures and
damages in the corridor. The current priorities in the basin are those projects which will
provide protection to the neighborhoods hardest hit in the 1997 storm.
Exhibit C, Public Process, includes copies of letters, comments,meeting minutes, and e-
mail correspondence generated since the May work session.
HISTORICAL STORM INFORMATION
At the May Work Session, Council requested information about past storms in the city.
Included in Exhibit A, Basin Facts, is a basin-by-basin summary of major storm events.
The year of the event is given, but not storm totals. To provide more perspective, data
from the official weather station on the CSU campus was also analyzed. This gage is
considered representative of the city.
Since 1949, there have been seven storms that produced at least a 10-year rainfall of 1.7
inches over two hours. The largest two-hour total recorded at the CSU gage was 3.78
inches during the 1997 storm. This storm also generated 5.3 inches over a 6-hour period.
However, there have been four storms since 1949 which have produced from 2.4 inches
up to 2.8 inches over two hours. These storms occurred in 1951, 1961, 1965, and 1992.
These storms were between the 25-year and 50-year events.
Utilities
light d: power • stormwater • wastewater • water
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 16, 2001
TO: Mayor Martinez and City Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager
THRU: Mike Smith, General Utilities Manager
FROM: Susan Duba Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer, Master Planning
SUBJECT: Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan
GENERAL BACKGROUND/POLICY
Among its many responsibilities, the Fort Collins Utilities is charged with providing
drainage master plans for the 12 drainage basins in the city. Master plans take a fairly
detailed look at the flooding and water quality problems in a particular basin and provide
a conceptual plan and associated cost to solve these problems. Master plans also guide
criteria for new development and provide the floodplain maps used for regulatory
purposes.
The City of Fort Collins is required by Colorado and Federal laws to regulate to the 100-
year storm event. This means the 100-year storm is used to map the regulatory floodplain
and enforce floodplain regulations.
The City has also adopted the 100-year storm as the design event for all new
development. This is enforced through the storm drainage design criteria and
construction standards. Many communities use this standard, including the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District which encompasses the metro-Denver area
communities.
For basin master plans, the City uses the 100-year stone to identify problems but has
adopted the policy to provide 100-year protection only if the benefit of projects outweigh
their cost. This means it is possible to provide less than 100-year protection. However,
the regulatory floodplain is still mapped using the 100-year storm and property and
structures remaining in the floodplain after projects are built are subject to the floodplain
regulations.
700 Wood Et. • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 805Z-0580 • (970)221-6700 • FAX (970) 221-6619 • TDD(970)224-6003
email:utilitiesC4ci.tort-collins.co.us • www-tcgox.com/utilities
After formation of the Stormwater Utility in 1980, drainage master plans were prepared
for the majority of the 12 drainage basins and many capital improvement projects
constructed based on these master plans. In 1999 a higher rainfall standard was adopted.
This was based on sound technical analysis,recommended by the Water Board and
adopted by Council. Higher rainfall has resulted in higher runoff and larger floodplains.
This requires all master plans to be updated to reflect the higher rainfall, and reevaluate
the needed capital improvements. The Canal Importation Master Plan is the first to be
completed since the adoption of the higher rainfall standard.
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
The Canal Importation Basin encompasses approximately 3,200 acres in west central Fort
Collins (see the enclosed Executive Summary). This highly urbanized basin is primarily
characterized by mixed use residential development,with only limited commercial
development. The extreme western portion of the basin consists of open space along the
foothills which is characterized by steep slopes and rock outcroppings. There are three
major irrigation canals which cross the Canal Importation Basin and generally flow from
north to south. These canals, listed in order from west to east, are: (a) Pleasant Valley
and Lake Canal; (b)New Mercer Ditch; and (c) Larimer County Canal No. 2. Most of
the basin was developed prior to drainage criteria being in place. Therefore, drainage
channels are too small, irrigation canals overflow, streets and intersections flood,
detention ponds overflow, and there are many structures in the 100-year floodplain.
For the updated plan, runoff flows were recalculated, floodplains mapped, and a variety
of alternatives evaluated to address the damage caused by flooding. In addition,the
master plan also includes an assessment of the riparian and wetland habitat in the basin,
and provides recommendations for enhancement of this habitat where possible in order to
improve stormwater quality.
Technical Considerations
Due to the highly urban character of this basin, the recommended solutions are also
highly urban in character. In general,projects include construction or enlargement of
detention ponds, construction of open channels and storm sewers, and enlargement of
road culverts. Since this has been prepared at a master plan level,the projects are
conceptual in nature and may change based upon actual field conditions at the time of
final design. The attached Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan Executive Summary
provides an overview of the technical process and recommendations of the master plan.
A major goal of the proposed improvements is to eliminate the uncontrolled overtopping,
and resulting flood damage, of the three irrigation canals which traverse the basin.
Portions of both the New Mercer Canal and the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal will be
heavily impacted by proposed alternatives,however,the overall impact to the irrigation
canals has been reduced from what was proposed in the original 1980 master plan.
The overall plan reduces or eliminates the majority of damages caused by flooding in the
Canal Importation Basin. Structures in the 100-year floodplain will be reduced from 704
2
to 65. Flooding along W. Elizabeth will be reduced,but not eliminated. Flows onto CSU
at Elizabeth and Shields will be reduced by over half. The plan also accommodates all
existing transportation and utility infrastructure.
Environmental Considerations
To the extent possible, the proposed projects provide opportunities to enhance and
expand wetlands and natural habitat areas to improve the quality of storm runoff. Efforts
have been made to retain and improve existing riparian habitat along the grass-lined
channels. The use of grass-lined channels will provide filtering of first flush flows in an
effort to enhance the quality of storm runoff leaving the basin. Many of the pond projects
provide opportunities for expanding wetland areas because they will be in at least partial
contact with seasonal groundwater. Improvements along the Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal and Canal Importation Channel corridors have been planned,to the extent possible,
to expand and/or connect existing wildlife travel corridors.
The New Mercer Canal project is the one major project which will drastically alter the
existing vegetation and travel corridor. To maximize the use of the corridor to carry
storm flows, the existing irrigation flows will be carried in a box culvert and the storm
flows carried either in a large box culvert or a grass bottomed open channel with vertical
concrete retaining walls. Construction will require removal of all the existing vegetation
(most of which is non-native), and may hamper movement of wildlife. However,the
extensive plan for the New Mercer Canal will provide the desired flood protection while
leaving the Larimer County No. 2 Canal virtually undisturbed.
Exhibit A includes a summary of facts about the proposed master plan.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The total estimated cost of the proposed storm drainage improvements is $51.5 million.
This is an increase compared to the cost to build the remaining projects in the original
master plan. Two factors contribute to the cost increase: the increased rainfall and
expansion of the scope of the master plan to address new local problem areas. Increased
rainfall results in larger flows and therefore larger, more expensive facilities. The
original master plan did not study or recommend solutions for several local problem
areas. This master plan update includes these areas.
The benefits of solving flood problems are many. They include:
➢ reduced damages to private structures, contents, vehicles,public infrastructure;
➢ reduced emergency response, evacuation, clean-up,temporary housing costs; and
➢ less tangible benefits such as environmental enhancement, and providing a feeling of
safety and security for citizens.
3
Table l summarizes the damages due to current flooding and the damages expected when
all improvements are built.These amounts do not include other costs such as damage to
public infrastructure, emergency response, clean-up, etc.
Table 1
Current Damages Damages After Improvements
in millions of dollars in millions of dollars
Single 100- ear Event $25 $2.38
Average Annual Damages $6.84 $0.84
Value of Average Annual
Damages in Today's $125 $15.3
Dollars over 50 ears
The net benefit provided by the improvements is over$109 million in today's dollars.
Comparing this to the estimated cost of implementing the proposed drainage
improvements, the benefit-cost ratio for the master plan is 2.1. Put in another way, the
"rate of return" for the master plan is 11.6%. Additional information about the benefit-
cost analysis is included in Exhibit B.
PUBLIC PROCESS
The master plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input. A technical
review team, consisting of City staff from key departments and representatives from the
ditch companies and CSU, has provided input.
We have worked directly with the Golf, Parks and Recreation, and Natural Resources
staff to review proposed projects. We have also worked with Colorado State University
staff. CSU participated in the study by providing some advanced modeling of the
irrigation canals which helped to define the flooding problems more clearly.
There have been two public open houses, and we are currently working with the Avery
Park neighborhood to ensure they understand the ramifications of the New Mercer Canal
project. The Water, Golf, Parks and Recreation,Planning and Zoning, and Natural
Resources Boards have had an opportunity to comment on the master plan.
Public Oven Houses
Two open houses were held in November 1999 and February 2000. Over 125 citizens
attended, many directly affected by the 1997 flood. In general,there was support for the
technical aspects of the plan with specific concerns about preserving and enhancing
wetlands and mature trees. There was concern about the condition of the existing
irrigation canals and their ability to convey drainage flows. Support for expediting the
construction of the projects was evident. Specific comments received are shown in
Exhibit C.
4
All property owners and residents in the 100-year floodplain have been notified they are
in the floodplain and subject to floodplain regulations. A copy of this letter is included in
Exhibit C.
City Boards
Several proposed projects directly affect other City facilities. The Mulberry Corridor
projects will affect City Park Nine Golf Course and Sheldon Lake in City Park. These
conceptual projects have been coordinated with the appropriate staff as well as both the
Parks and Recreation and Golf Boards. The support of both Boards is greatly
appreciated. The ability to combine storm projects with other City facilities has enhanced
the protection we are able to provide and the cost effectiveness of the protection. The
minutes from the Board meetings are included in Exhibit D.
The Canal Importation Channel Corridor projects are located in currently mapped
wetlands and natural habitat areas. The New Mercer Canal and the PV&L
Canal projects will impact natural habitat corridors. We have coordinated with the
Natural Resources staff and met with the Natural Resources Advisory Board during the
planning process. The Advisory Board has expressed concern over these projects and has
stated they will have a negative impact on wildlife habitat and natural features in the
basin. The Natural Resources staff has been generally supportive of the proposed projects
and will continue to participate during the final design of projects,particularly along the
Canal Importation Channel Corridor. One of the goals of the plan is to retain and _
improve natural areas where possible and expand wetland areas in order to improve
stormwater quality. A copy of the Board's comments is included in Exhibit D.
General feedback was received from both the Planning and Zoning and Natural
Resources Advisory Boards about the large expense of implementing the master plan.
SUMMARY
The Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan seeks to balance the interests of the
community by proposing to:
• provide flood protection at the 100-year level for the majority of the basin;
• reduce the incidence of overtopping and flooding of major streets and irrigation
ditches; and
• to the extent possible, enhance and expand wetlands and natural areas to improve
the quality of storm runoff.
Although the cost of the plan is high, the effectiveness of the plan is shown by its highly
favorable benefit-cost ratio.
5
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
FACT SHEET
GENERAL
• This is an update to the original 1980 master plan.
• It uses the 100-year rainfall of 3.67 inches over 2-hours as the design storm.
• Master plan follows policy to provide 100-year protection if benefits outweigh costs of
improvements.
BASIN
• This west-central basin is over 5 square miles in size.
• Almost entirely developed,except for the extreme west portion in the foothills.
• Most of the basin was developed prior to enforcing drainage criteria.
• Three irrigation canals(Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal,New Mercer Canal, and Larimer County
Canal No.2)cross the basin,intercepting and transporting runoff.
• There are 704 structures damaged in a 100-year flood.
• Major street flooding hampers emergency access and evacuation,and places citizens in vehicles at
risk.
• The structural damage in a 100-year event is estimated to be over$25 million.
• Over a 50 year period, structural damage (in today's dollars)is estimated to be nearly$125 million.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
• Because the basin is highly urban,the improvements are also highly urban in character.
• Projects include construction or enlargement of detention ponds, storm sewers,channels, and road
crossings.
• When all projects are in place,the majority of the uncontrolled overtopping of the irrigation canals
will be eliminated.
• There will be 65 structures in the residual 100-year floodplain(reduced from 704).
• The plan provides opportunities to enhance and expand natural habitat areas and improve the quality
of storm runoff. Many of the pond projects may expand the wetland areas because they will be in at
least partial contact with seasonal groundwater.
• The New Mercer Canal, from Elizabeth Street to south of Prospect Road,will be dramatically
changed in order to build the drainage project. This section of mapped natural habitat will be lost in
order to provide flood protection. The habitat lost consists of non-native species. By providing
maximum protection in the New Mercer corridor,the Larimer County Canal No. 2 can remain
virtually untouched.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
• The cost to build the proposed drainage improvements is$51.5 million.
• The improvements will reduce the single 100-year event structural damage to$2.38 million.
• Over a 50-year period,the structural damage (in today's dollars)would be reduced by over$109
million to $15.3 million.
• The benefit—cost ratio for this plan is 2.2.
• This translates to an 11.6%return rate.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• The plan has been prepared with significant staff and public input.
• The Parks and Recreation,Golf,Water,Natural Resources, and Planning and Zoning Boards were
given opportunity to comment on the plan. Major concerns include impact on the environment and
the cost of the plan.
• Two public open houses were given to gather input.
• A letter to all property owners and residents in the floodplain has been prepared and is ready to be
mailed. Full regulation of the floodplain is proposed to begin on July 1, 2001.
Canal Importation Basin Master Plan
Number of Structures in Floodplain Before and After
Improvements
Figure 1
800
704
700 p.�..J.�.w
'VJ VJdJJww
W �JryyJ""Jd`
L 600 )rJJrJJVJ4
eJJyryJVJJw
471
500 /J�VwJJJJJ..
JJyryJ"JJw
J J J V [a Before
i Y J d J e
JJ..rJrJJJJ. '.JVy� JJA
Improvements
400
J V rd V
1JVJyVJJV,
O )JJyJJJydj r
J VVY" d JJJJJ+JVrw
■After
` 300 'JJJ,•JJYJJ` 'JJ"Jy"J"d`
J J J J J JyJV yJyj.
AVVVJJ"VJJw Improvements
IJJ
JJJJdJJJJV` JJJJJJ,JJ�
200 Jyr" .
J)V"JYdVw ,V"Jj 1dilJJ 141
Z J J J V d
J V J V J w J J J d V
J J J J J
) J J J J� �.IrVJJrJVd
JJ JJ J JJ J d '. id JwJ�H
♦r d V Y . J J J J J d V J J�
100 )JJJJJ JJJw ,JJVJJJJJJ' 37 )JJJJJ.IVJ w
JVJJw JJJJJ ' VVVJJ 31
JJ V J V J ,VVVJJVJVYw IVVJ JVJ J
l VrJV
d J V J Jw iJJJJ..JJJd. )JJJJi+iI J
0 JJJJVJ
Y J J d
100-year 10-year 2-year
Storm Frequencies
0
Canal Importation Basin
Runoff Flows Before and After Improvements
at Selected Locations
Figure 2
1600
1400 ---------------------- -1336-------------------------------
1200 -------—--------------- - ------------—-----------------
w 1000 ---------------------- - ---------------------- ❑ Flows (cfs) Before
Improvements
0 567 s1a 573 ■ Flows (cfs) After
,L 600 --------------------------- ---------------------------- Improvements
400 ---33&-------- -----322
-------- 276 ----- 258
231 231
200 -------- ----- — ----- ---- ---
0
0
Larimer County Plum Street Avery Park Elizabeth at Prospect and North of
Canal No. 2 Basin Regional Pond at New Shields Taft Hill Roads Drake/Taft Hill
Spill to Oak Detention Pond Mercer Ditch Road
Street
Location
Dry CftGIC- �... a m serious I�loodfng since s _ The absence oteMen minor IlaodInge
- about 195 to the netwojk Irtigauon$ori�s rim_t ::
-ti - halve sane taunter tin small to.�
- vh _. 8
moderate Dry Creetllowr-
Canal Impoitation Basin 1997 and 1999 - There are several rain age areas In this basIn._ :
Past floods were not` Development Prior drai cri nage teria cnaoanc�d
s 'well documented. •- . - on the channels,redudng the Oow"capacity and
w causing flooding.The irtigation peals also owllow, :.
their banks and ease flooding .�a
ram lion
EXHIBIT B
BENEFIT/COST
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN MASTER PLAN
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
Why Does This Basin Cost So Much?
• The Canal Importation Basin is almost completely developed. Much of the development
occurred prior to:
➢ Adopted drainage criteria
➢ Knowledge of the flooding problems
• As more development occurred without drainage criteria, the flooding problems downstream
became worse, and the options to solve the problems became more limited. Some areas in
the basin don't have a 2-year level of protection.
• Because of the limited room to handle the flood flows,the solutions (projects)are very
structural (pipes, culverts, engineered channels) and extensive. There is limited open area to
just let the streams flood without intervention.
Why Would the Community Want to Spend So Much in Just One Basin?
• The benefit-cost analysis shows for each dollar spent,over two dollars will be saved in flood
damages over a 50-year period. This doesn't take into account the reduced costs of
emergency response, temporary housing, cleanup costs, loss of rental income, loss of time
from work, interest on loans to repair damaged structures, or damages to vehicles.
• The community as a whole benefits from the projects because they make us more disaster
resistant. Emergency vehicles will have access to the streets. Citizens who live in other parts
of town will be able to access recreation facilities, businesses and employers in the basin.
Employees who live in this basin will be able to return to work more quickly after a storm,
no matter where they work in the community.
• There are over 700 structures located in the current Canal Importation floodplain. With all
projects built this will be reduced to 65 structures. Citywide, there are over 1800 structures
in other designated floodplains. The community will achieve a significant reduction in flood
risk by removing these structures in the Canal Importation basin from the floodplain.
• These improvements are long term and their benefits will be realized over many years.
Although the analysis is for a 50-year period, development in this area will be here much
longer and flood protection will be in place.
• If the flooding problems aren't addressed, this area of the community may deteriorate if
citizens and business owners aren't willing to invest in their properties due to the risk of
flooding.
Basic Assumptions in a Benefit-Cost Analysis
• A benefit-cost analysis is done to determine whether or not a project is worth doing.
• Our method is based on the communities' policy that 100-year protection will be provided if
the benefits are more than the costs. If benefits don't outweigh costs for 100-year protection,
then a"least cost"analysis is done, where the level of protection is determined by the
minimum total cost to the community.
• The expected value of annual flood damages is the product of the damage expected from a
flood, and the probability of that flood occurring in any given year. For example, even
though the total damage from a 100-year flood may be high,the probability of it occurring is
low. The total damage from a 2-year flood may be relatively low,but the probability of it
occurring is high. Therefore, you'll have repeated damage over many years.
• The annual flood damages from each storm frequency are added up and this becomes the
"average annual flood damage". (See Figure 3)
• The tangible benefits from the master plan are the expected"reduced damages and losses"
over the lifetime of the project. These include:
➢ reduction in flood damage to structures, contents,public infrastructure and vehicles;
➢ reduction in the costs of"loss of function"such as hospitals, fire stations,police,
businesses;
➢ reduction in emergency management costs such as evacuation, temporary housing,clean-
up;
➢ reduction in casualties.
• Benefits more difficult to place a dollar value on can include providing open space for
recreation and wildlife,reducing pollution, and providing a feeling of safety and security for
our citizens.
How Were the Benefits and Costs Calculated for This Basin?
• Benefits: reduction in flood damages
1) Estimate how often and how severe flooding is.
2) Estimate the consequences of flooding(damages) if nothing is done.
➢ Structural damages are calculated based on how deep the water is on a structure and
how often it occurs.
➢ Structural damages include damage from all studied storms (2, 10 and 100-yr. in the
Canal Importation Basin),not just the 100-year event.
3) Estimate the consequences of flooding after projects are built (residual damages).
4) The difference between 3 and 2 is the benefit of building the projects.
• Costs: amount needed(in today's dollars)to build the master plan projects.
• The benefits and costs can't be directly compared in this format. The time value of money
must be taken into account to determine if this is a wise investment of the community's
funds.
• Therefore,the annualized benefits are brought to a present worth value using a discount rate
and the useful life of the master plan projects. The discount rate is usually based on the
inflation rate of construction projects. The useful life is typically 50 years, assuming major
repair or maintenance would not occur during 50 years.
• The present worth of the benefits is then compared to the cost of the master plan projects. If
benefits are greater than costs then the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one and the project
has met criteria.
• If the benefits exceed costs,the"return on investment"can also be calculated by determining
the discount rate required to make annualized benefits equal the cost of the projects. In the
Canal Importation Basin this rate of return is 11.6%.
File: Canal Importation/B-C Issue Paper 2
2
Canal Importation Basin Master Plan
Flood Damages Before and After Master Plan
Improvements
Figure 3
$30.00
C i25.63 0 Flood Damages
H $25.00 = Before
as "`Y= - Improvements
C
E $20.00
ca y ■ Flood Damages
After
O C $15.00 -t- p
^�->-- Im rovements
cc $10.00
$5.00 ^ v ,,l a
Q
$0.84
.ter ✓ . f 1.13 :w:' 0.94
$0.00 i1 �::
•'�� " = Does not include costs
Average 100-year 10-year 2-year for emergency response,
clean-up, vehicle damage,
Annual temporary housing nor lost
Storm Frequencies Work hours.
EXHIBIT C
PUBLIC PROCESS
Canal Importation Open House Comments
for both the November and February dates
February 2000
Gary Kenyon/Cheryl Beseler
2709 Indian Peaks Place
493-8058
1. Tree removal—save the trees.
2. Pipes good.
3. Promote riparian habitat—more is better.
4. Fee increase preferable to construction delays.
5. Avoid involuntary acquisition of property at all costs.
Ervin Deal
1112 Lynnwood Dr.
1. Putting the irrigation water in a"pipe"seems to make no sense whatsoever. All one does is
insure that the space for irrigation water cannot be used for storm water drainage. A lot of
money is spent for a"pipe"and assures that one gets only the minimal amount of drainage
that one would have if one made the ditch the size that one wanted for both irrigation and
drainage. Surely there is a better way than the two extremes exhibited 2/2/00 at the Senior
Center. One could deepen and/or widen the ditches, even out the slope so the bottoms of the
ditches don/t go up and down, (thus improving the health of the city), spray the sides and
bottom with sealant,take out the brush,and maybe some of the trees,put in gates and all that
—surely for less than putting the"pipes".
2. The ditch company owns the runoff from the Fairview subdivision, and perhaps from other
subdivisions. If you enclose the irrigation water,how are you going to get that runoff into
those"pipes"?
3. The ability to shut off irrigation intake from the Fort Collins city offices in the event of a
storm is an excellent idea.
4. How can you justify calling a tax(money for the general good)for storm drainage a fee
(money for the particular good)? It smacks of dishonesty to mislabel a financial extraction.
Don Heyse
1842 Corriedale Dr.
495-1860
Definitely avoid removing mature trees. Whenever possible,route channels around mature trees.
Wetland addition and enhancement is a very good idea. Increase fees rather than delay
construction. Pipes are a good alternative to open channels.
James H. Groves
1630 Northbrook Dr.
482-2447
Just a comment—I would be in favor of increasing fees or even a bond issue to speed up
implementation of the overall plan.
Frank Goss
1621 Leesdale Court
fgoss(@frii.com
493-5387
Don't take down trees while the squirrels and birds are nesting. We support alternative No. 3 for
the New Mercer Ditch. Since we are the second house south of the Woodbox Condos,we are
very concerned about the impact of the wall that was constructed to support their fence. We feel
that the wall will increase the likelihood of our property flooding. -
JoAnn Brown
1419 Lakeshore Dr.
Property:2929 Ross Drive R61
226-0800
I noticed on the website that flood insurance might be required by the City. How do HOA's who
carry Homeowner's policies for all the dwellings go about obtaining it? i.e., 6-8 units are covered
by 1 policy. i.e.,6-8 different homeowners—I'm glad for the clarification Susan provided on
improvements that impact Willow Lane HOA.
Tom and Betty Maloney
1309 City Park Ave.
493-2769
First,we were flooded in July '97 and suffered less than many others. but enough damage
happened that we don't want uncontrolled flooding of overflow of LJC#2 ditch to come again.
The#2 ditch people allow debris to remain in channels for months,seldom"walking"the ditch
finding both tree limbs and human refuse,small and large. Get ditch company to remove fallen
banks. As for Lar.Ditch II—leave trees. Stop erosion on east bank—ditch is now slowly moving
east.
Jim Loonan
1630 S.College Ave.
493-2808
Nice presentation and good job with the displays. The problem with putting the irrigation ditch in
a pipe is sedimentation,and maintenance as well as capital costs. I prefer open channels and
channels with trickle/irrigation channels. I like the idea of using wetlands where possible.
Dennis Sumner
1806 Lakeshore Cr.
Property: 1104 Ponderosa
223-6081
I support increasing drainage in the basin. I understand there are concerns with removing trees.
In my view trees can be replanted and I advocate a high sensitivity to cost effective efforts. I
would like completed projects to look nice but don't waste money working around a given tree,
etc. I appreciate your open house,thanks.
PV&L Ditch erosion behind 2430 Cheviot Drive. South bank eroding at bend. Report to Ed
Wendell and Rodney Albers.
Bret Wagner
1606 Northbrook
221-4273
If you currently deepen Fairbrookc pond you need to lower the outlet gate too. Due to my ground
water problems I currently have 2 sump pumps at my house to try and stay ahead of the ground
water problem during the wet season.
Lois Rellergert
1631 Independence Rd.
Is there more of a middle ground option for the New Mercer? Alternative#2 would still allow for
"substantial"damage to homes but Alternative#3 eliminates damage to homes during a 100-year
event.
Bill and Kay Lindgren
1513 Independence Rd.
484-4432
1. After reviewing the plans and alternatives we agree that the New Mercer and Latimer Canal
#2 are high priorities. However,our choice for New Mercer would be Alternative#2. For
Larimer Co.Canal#2 our choice would be Alternative#2A. From the map it appears there is
more open space and fewer houses along Latimer#2. 2. It was suggested on the Pleasant Valley
and Lake Canal plan that if the No.part was completed as far as the Fairbrooke Heights Pond that
the channel improvements south of there would not be necessary. 3. It would seem the Mulberry
St.channel is less of a priority than Plum St.and Clearview channel improvements. I don't
understand if they have to be built in the order described because of the way water flows.
November 1999
Sanford Thayer
1827 Michael Lane
482-7932
I would appreciate an 81/2"x 11"of that portion of the Anderson Consulting"100-year
Floodplain Map"that would show lots 10 and 12 of Sonoran View Estates. (south of Michael
Lane,west of Fox Meadows detention,north of Promenade Way and east of S.Taft Hill Rd.)
(Susan Hayes gave him a copy of this map.)
E.R.Deal
1112 Lynnwood
482-4488
When the fence at the east end of Avery Pond was put in, the side walk from Skyline was
dammed, so there is a pond on the walk for several days after a rain,and mud for more days.
With the fences, there is no way to get around it. Why can't that be drained to the New Mercer
Canal? (7his issue was given to Rodney Albers who checked the area and took care of the
drainage problem.)
Jennifer Lacy
2506 Dorset Ct.
482-9283
I received notification of the meeting 2 hours(by postcard in mail)before the Vo meeting option
and a day after the 1"meeting option. It's hard to believe that you're really interested in public
opinion when you make it difficult to attend. If there's a viable,economically reasonable
alternative to the dual ditch system, I'm whole-heartedly in support.I'd hate to see what's left of
the open area around the PVL ditch destroyed. So count my vote for piping the predictable,
steady irrigation flow, and leaving the current ditch for stormwater.
Joan Evans
1305 City Park
482-2129
Operating ditches—when was Latimer No. 2 running this year,how long? Where it went. What
it's used for? Should ditches even been running during"monsoon"season? (as requested, Susan
Hayes sent article on ditch companies 11-18-99.)
Perry Springer
(Attn:Linc Mueller)
Construction project on the Fairbrooke Heights detention pond should not cause problems with
dust on adjacent properties. He will seek legal council. Bob Smith talked to him.
Carl Chambers
2437 Hollingboume
495-1975
1. "Possible projects—piping irrigation flows"—this project would have major benefits. It
would eliminate the problem of open canals collecting upslope stormwater from large
drainage areas and dumping large volumes of water at a few locations. Project is more
feasible because City is a major shareholder in most ditch companies.
2. "Possible projects—straighten and steepen canals"—yeah,right. Let's deliver more water,
faster to the points where the ditch may still overflow. Other risks is that straightening and
steepening may induce downcutting as stream power increases. It is also unlikely that
straightening could be accomplished within existing easements.
3. "Possible projects create and enhance riparian habitat . . ." one opportunity for creating
and/or maintaining habitat along drainage channels is to rethink the design. We live along
the Fairbrooke Channel,and when it was being reconstructed a couple of years ago(prior to
the flood),we had several conversations with the maintenance crew. When we asked why the
work was being done,they said that the channels lose capacity due to sediment accumulation,
and have to be periodically cleaned. They then proceeded to reconstruct a channel with a
wide flat cross-section,which will certainly accumulate sediment again,necessitating further
maintenance. The problem with this design is that it was obviously designed to efficiently
transport the design(I00-yr7)event,but is inefficient at transporting flow and sediment for
smaller more frequent events. Storm drainage enters the large channel and immediately slow
down, spreads out and drops sediment. An improved design possibility would be to construct
a narrower,sinuous channel within the flood channel with a capacity to handle the 2-5 year
design flow. Examples of such channels can be found in the city's natural areas as well as in
the channels built by flowing water in the flood channels between maintenance events.
Benefits would be reduced expense and more stable channels not subject to frequent
maintenance.
Rick Gonzales—neighborhood coordinator
2218 Cedarwood
484-9927
Water table has risen—possibly due to Fairbrooke development to west—since the 1997 storm—
spoke with Susan—she suggested it was due to 1997 storm subsurface flushing.
Reggie Kechter
1817 Longworth Rd.
221-4807
Phase S within open space East Taft. 36"RCP under Longworth. (see picture on original)
Betty Maloney
1309 City Park Ave.
493-2769
1. Better warning system.
2. Better ditch maintenance. i.e.,dredging—digging out banks that have fallen in—remove
debris. We have a potential dam in the ditch from the above.
3. Concern about using one ditch to carry all the irrigation water—at peak irrigation flows both
ditches are running bank to bank!
4. More storm drainage separate from ditches.
Suzanne Oliphant
2712 Williamsburg Ct.
484-5851
Prospect to Sommerville,ditch bottom has adverse rise of 14—18"plus 3 storm drains.
Thomas Maloney
1309 City Park Ave.
493-2769
Ditch#2(County)is right behind our home. We,of course,were flooded in July 1997,losing our
furnace and still have ground water moisture. Our immediate neighbor hit ground water two feet
down when he was digging for a post hole last summer. The ditch was not running at the time
(seepage is great for our fruit trees in the backyard). Also,I have called the#2 ditch people about
the caving in of the sides of the ditch(islands of grass clog the ditch bottom and lower side-
walls).
Chuck and Pat Hoffman
1909 Longworth
498-0449
Pump from well for irrigation. With deed came rights to"lake"across the street. Not a state
well. Also applies to neighbor. Can well be dug deeper if groundwater goes down?
i Gary Vette
1625 W.Elizabeth B-4
484-6598
Would prefer to consolidate NMD irrigation into LCC#2. Want entire NMD ROW utilized for
stormwater conveyance to Canal Importation channel/Spring Creek. Please put NMD parallel
channel at the top of the priority list.
Michael E.Manning
1943 Etton Dr.
482-3884
1. Concern that new structure being added to Pleasant Valley ditch will back up water upstream
of spillway.
2. Concern that Pleas Valley ditch is being used not as part of stormwater drainage system.
Development west of ditch and upstream has resulted in ditch taking stormwater beyond it's
capabilities.
3. What will cost be to condemn easement or rights of way where existing P.V.ditch is to use
as stormwater drain?
Denise Parker
2300 Coventry Ct.
221-3049
My concerns are:
1. Prior to the flooding I had not trouble with basement flooding.
2. 1 now experience back drainage from my"french drainage" system that allows water to seep
into my basement due to high water table level. It also seeps in from foundation/flooring.
3. The retention pond at the comer of Taft/Prospect where are the drainage exists? I see many
areas draining into this area—what or how does the water leave. I believe this adds to the T
water table level and my problem on#2.
Duchene's
825 Timber Lane
493-3170
New development to the SW(Pear St?)creates runoff which flows down Plum and turns north on
Timber. the flow don't cross the crown and stay on the west side of the street. They also
received extensive flooding in '97 from seepage into basement.
Jodie Rankin
1420 Fleetwood Ct.
221-2037
The City and the Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal should work together to address the debris that
has collected in the ditch as well the overgrown grass and brush that clogs the waterway. The
water collects under the bridge at Prospect due to the trash and changes in depth of the ditch,
resulting in the water flow being sluggish and impeded upstream. Also the ditch threatens to
overflow with fairly heavy rainstorms; stormwater is flowing in with the irrigation water.
Bob Rankin
1420 Fleetwood Ct.
221-2037
1. The bridge for the Pleasant Valley Ditch crossing on Prospect need some drainage design and
work,mainly south of Prospect. The water in the canal backs up to the north past Lake even
with normal ditch flow,and especially when stormwater is dumped from the new large pipe
on the south side of Prospect.
2. The Pleasant Valley Ditch in our area has not been maintained for at least 3 years. The canal
is full of debris(wood,junk,etc.)and is almost completely overgrown with weeks and grass,
thereby decreasing water flow. Burning it out this winter would help considerably. It would
be nice not go through another'97 flood and have 7' of water in our basement.
There are concerns about ditch maintenance.
Frank Goss
1621 Leesdale Court
493-5387
We live on the east side of the New mercer Ditch. We don't mind if the ditch is widened as long
as we don't lose any of our backyard. Our backyard is wide but not very deep. We don't mind if
the trees on the west side of the ditch have to be removed to improve the ditch. The trees are
mostly cottonwood and willow.
Frank Medsker
2707 W.Mulberry
Rogers Park did not catch any of the Mulberry west flow—the flow coming from the west along
Mulberry did not reach the park—the park was"relatively"dry—thought this was to catch
upstream flows.
526 Skyline Dr.
Lack of drainage facilities on Skyline Dr.just north of Crestmore Dr; single 8"or 10"pipe was
replace with 12"or 15"pipe;but pipe drains to the NMD and street flooding occurs frequently;
can this be improved?
Daniel Kirkbill
1613 Lakeridge Ct.
The new Avery park pond outlet fills the N.Mercer much faster than before. I'll give up my
green belt to enlarge the N.Mercer to protect my property.
Francis St.John
2041 Manchester Dr.
484-6218
The lack of a suitable retention pond just west of Taft Hill Rd—south of Manchester Drive and
north of Valley Forge.
Don Fogerberg
1304 Constitution Ave.
484-6395
It appears that a positive plan is in place,but initiating has taken a long time. The flood of July
1997 could have been reduced with some of the plan already in place.
Vic Meline
1212 Southridge Dr.
484-7575
How do you propose to handle irrigation and stormwater in New Mercer and Larimer#2 canals?
1120 Hilicrest and 1116
Clearview channel flooding—current project will address/help this.
Janell DeMint
807 Pear St.
224-5931
The Plum Street Drainage Channel comes through my neighborhood. I have lived there for 16
years. For the first 14 of the years,I never had any water in my basement. In May-June '97 the
City"filled in"a drainage ditch between 813 and 819 Pear St. In July '97 my basement flooded
for the first time—I assumed this was just because it was a tremendous, unusual rainfall.
However, since then,my basement has flooded four times—twice in '98. The most recent in
May '99. The house next to the revised drainage flood first and then the houses on each side of
them flood and it continues up and down the block. I feel this has only been since the drainage
ditch was filled in and would like to see this redug out or revised in some way.
Canal Imporiotion Mosier Droinogeway Plan
Public Meetings, February 2 - 3 , 2000
Sign- in Sheet
City of F�o
Utilities
Name Address Phone #
S $36 aeie ODOZ& R $L�DSS6
St - Ooha 2041 4,e-:hesfP/ Dr,
^_oc�o f�Gvr Ir 1( v �o —
14j�:_A1 YOA1 270 4� Alt >(A Al PENg45 -PL.
-�J►J�J c5 S`��o►�l z�� � - � � �1 �gz -3��8��.
Canal Imporiotion Mosier Droinogeway Plan
Public Meetings, February 2 - 3 , 2000
Sign- in Sheet
City of Fort Collin
�
Utilities
Pau
Na�m.,e, Address / Phone #
e�i��eu toF . y g-y' yY✓,7"
OIJ S ' 2 c()Izx1e4 OS,A L/ -1 &ID
6S�
a g d
i . � c� c X i t / Z /'t� � �U U �L T),1 50 "2 f LI B Z �/4
O)P.44e 50AI 6fWtl 20LLA� 4�3 228v
�,C'Od6s qp2--z yYz
hcje tr <_ ka F, c cr 000 r.L( �-Pn —6117
l e e o a cjQ7•, T'J� , Z 3 4 7
(Y a 6x ><lOIIIAK, RO61 fY, e6, -z6 �p9_-s3/p
�A44nI __C�r C� k 7
- Canal Importation Master brainageway Plan
Public Meetings, February 2 - 3, 2000
Sign- in Sheet
Gty of Fort Collins
Utilities
�
Name (Plea se- pin ,�) Address Phone #
Lf /yIC CGT Y 22-`{ -603�
�c r 22�-vgU6
fZ .sue.
1900 LILL, rLv- of - 5 27�
% 430 1
RDLeA (,JewAeks .5-)6 D,- y8-p- . /' 6
3 M7 41Ozi!tzc La4l_-e ga5.26 22G - 537!2
+
raa S'r4 y i n o a g l Z w, Al ul bgwr z 5 l()a
fs 11
4
-+1
e:fdc4e-4®s�� �f64-6�5
Canal Importation Master Drainageway Plan
Public Meetings, November 16-17, 1999
Sign- in Sheet
city of�Oft colffils
Utilities
Name Address Phone #
' �. 1J, lle r-/ oO ,06 1J. pROsft CT- ft? y8f 280 I
At .L /q i
AakL,4,� 6e 2,w X,-_b
Ia7Z RsE D �1 �l � tiYl2
G 9 -
► -,30
Y I�iUYo�tl • 27v ��(� 3 �58'
v sf; Cam' L� 1 `l /V19 -
1 az-I-l�
dr -
J T- icdc
' STe�e �ov�-�•� 13n C'n� 5`� � F r w; ,�iv. �G -yy 8 6
S dOOq nhr C- 9S- 131
22
Canal Importation Master Drainageway Plan
Public Meetings, November 16-17, 1999
Sign- in Sheet
cicy colffils
o
Utilities
Name Address Phone #
/ �'rannn .l- (7V/O1 Pj&A-.We,K -21I0'7 t!J MuiL L q- 90
rrto Mc,NO_,.5fef lyo9Ski:-�et1�r. wgY-33 £>
/e-4,�ai4(4J nj t.>d iY4� 434y
/ 1 • V✓Vl M� 1 �A.� ll� l� � 1 �' \ A 11 G � \ � �_Z �
?
0DO liLOc-K a619 kl. 111A/&geuR,1E �/P gara6 Lto7��s7
uivIL Mt/ELLE2 631 QEl1"uz axi,16 22d -L7o1
�2
,1 sc��6�lCautG /i ate. /I(�� ,y9 -s2/p7¢
3n c 't6�
l 6 S< 99:5-
�a
Canal Importation Master Drainageway Plan
Public Meetings, November 16-17, 1999
Sign- in Sheet
City of Fort Collins
�
Utilities
Name Address Phone #
—S
!� e � � Z cvrr� ii✓ d . ?"s"7
C'
C ,
La/8
/30 g rjf Hid-r mA-v2 48 4-631S
�v n 13 OS CZ&4 �9 2-7.42�L
i i Z 4 L mow, vc' 4 7 Z - v yr
rJO end. �h ot 2 2 a-s
k c��
2-
b B La6 Cf.
Canal Importation Master Drainageway Plan
Public Meetings, November 16-17, 1999
Sign- in Sheet
citycity of Fort Collins
Utilities
Name Address Phone #
�ut) Ghu�,,bers a437 44olfbkci oOftne, br �05 --1g2S
be 4fea asses
f4,
Y��f t- fie,✓ Sao &-gl1 ei n>/'�
1 �,�in in /l�/ olf aysG C/t�✓1o7� N%c "7�a?' l�aV � .
JAN-23-01 TUE 09 :45 AM R. VALUES 979 494 6596 P. 02
Post-IN Fax Note 7871
WOODBOX CONDO MEMORANDUM ie
._....__.._..._._...---_..........___. __.,.. ....TO: CITYOP F t.COLLINS,57'ORb1lC%ATER do WATER BOARD Pha •
Faz1 .�1
FROM: BOARD OF DIRECTORS wOODDOX C.0NDO�I1NI11M FIOMEOWNFJLS ASGOC `V
SUBJECT: NEW MERCER DITCH STORM CHANNEL.
DATE: 01/20/01
CC: MAYOR DIARIINE7,CITY MANAGER COUNCIL PERSON MIKF?BYNES
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (SECTION EE]
Since the New Mercer Ditch, which borders the Western property line of the Woodbox Condo project,
o«rllowed its banks in July 1985 - various Woodbox Board of Directors have expressed the need to correct
This fault of haying the drainage of storm waters into the New blercer Ditch. In 1985, the Board was told that
the problem "is being addressed by the new•'Master Plan'for the Canal Importation Basin".The bank level of
the New Mercer has remained unchanged sin" then.
As a result of the July '97 major flood, which impacted the Woodbox complex dramatically (30" river of
stormw•aters running through the complex], the City Storm Q'ater Dept, has finally presented it's proposed
plan of improvements adjacent to out properly line - detailed in Section EE of Storm Channel Improvement
(plate 2 of Plan & Profile]. After review and discussion with City Senior Engineer - Susan Hayes and
Anderson Project Dlanager- Greg Koch,the Board of Directors wishes to express the following concerns:
1. Proposed 'lek' (East side) bank of the new-Storm Channel is only 5 feet high in Section EE-while the
left bank immediately downstream [Section DD] is 6 feet
2. Proposed left bank for Section EE is lower than the right bank in Section EE
3. NO detail or proposed Plan and Profile has been presented to accommodate the 10015 of cubic feet of
6tormwaters that will HIT the new Storm Channel, at the Elizabeth St. junction, from stormwaters
flowing off the south side of NC'est Elizabeth Street. NOTE: the New Mercer Ditch/Storm Channel is
the 1" drain of Elizabeth Street stormwaters
4. Proposed plan for construction of improvements is now delayed until 2004
Realize that the Board of Directors is not opposed to the planned improvements of the New Mercer Ditch
Or the Storm Channel, nor the total Canal Importation Master Plan of Improvements. However, we are
concerned about the adequacy-of the improvements to handle the stormwaters within Section EE of those
improvements. For 2 (two) decades now, various Boards have expressed the need to rectify bank height
and level. It is our hope that the Board does not have to hire independent water engineers, nor seek court
action to provide a safe environment for our homeowners.
\CVondbox Board of Directors;
/77
Woodboc Condo Association- 1625 W Elizabeth,Ft. Collins,CO 90521
Utilities
light 6t power • stormrvater • wastewater • water
itv of Fort Collins
May 14, 2001
Re:Notification of Floodplain Regulations in the Canal Importation 100-year Floodplain
Dear Resident/Owner:
Portions of Fort Collins are subject to flooding from intense thunderstorms. Fort Collins
Utilities studies flooding potential in the city by completing master plans of the 12
drainage basins in the city. These plans identify areas flooded during a 100-year storm
(the 100-year floodplain), and recommend projects to reduce the damage caused by
flooding.
Your property is located in the Canal Importation Drainage Basin . This basin is highly
developed and suffers from significant flood damage from intense thunderstorms. The
flood of July, 1997, clearly illustrated this. The master plan for this basin has recently
been updated, and the 100-year floodplain has been mapped. There are more than 700
structures located in the Canal Importation Basin 100-year floodplain. All or part of
your property is located in the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 1).
Fort Collins Utilities manages and administers the City's floodplains. We take our
responsibility seriously and want you to be informed about potential hazards and
floodplain regulations. These regulations not only minimize health and safety risks and
property damage,but also help ensure that any new development in the floodplain does
not increase flooding problems.
Floodplain regulations apply to all construction: new development, redevelopment,
additions,remodels, placement of fill, construction of fences, etc. Beginning July 1,
2001, the Utilities will be enforcing the floodplain regulations for all properties in
the Canal Importation floodplain. Before beginning any construction on your building
or property, contact us for specific floodplain regulation requirements. A simplified table
of the floodplain regulations is enclosed (see Figure 2). For more detail,the City's
floodplain regulations (Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code) can be found on the web at
IittR://bvc.iserver.net/codes/fortcoll/index.htm. If you would like a specific floodplain
determination for your property,please call 221-6700. The Utilities also recommends the
purchase of flood insurance. Flood insurance may be required by lenders if you sell or
refinance your house.
Besides mapping the floodplain, the basin master plan recommends a variety of drainage
projects to reduce flood damage and improve emergency access during a flood. After
the 1997 flood, this basin became one of the top priorities in the City for construction of
700 Wood St. • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO.80522-0580 • (970)221-6700 • FAX(970)221-6619 • TDD(970)224-6003
email:utilitiesCaci.fort-collins.co.us • w-Aw.fcgov.com/utifi ties.'
drainage improvements. Some projects have been completed,but the updated master
plan has redesigned the remaining projects and added new ones.
This plan has not yet been adopted and is currently under review. We plan to present the
master plan to City Council at the May 22,2001 work session. This is an opportunity for
Council to give us feedback on the plan prior to its formal adoption. If you would like to
comment on the master plan,we will provide your feedback to Council prior to final
adoption. Please contact Susan Hayes for specific information on the proposed plan.
If you have any questions or need more information,please contact one of us.
Sincerely,
Susan L.D. Hayes, .E. Marsha Hilmes Robinson
Senior Stormwater Engineer Floodplain Administrator
Master Plan Project Manager 224-6036
416-2233 mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com
sha es a.fcgov.com
- �1111�_=11■1
1111��III�
n
.r Y
rat off oil
Figure 2
Canal Importation Floodplain Regulations
On July 1, 2001,the City of Fort Collins will begin enforcing the City's floodplain regulations
for the recently mapped Canal Importation Floodplain.Chapter 10 of City Code outlines the
floodplain regulations in detail. The table below is a summary of the key regulations that may
pertain to your property. Contact the Utilities at 221-6700 if you have questions.
Criteria Canal Importation Basin
FLOODPLAIN USE ➢ Required for new development,additions,remodels,filling,
PERMIT grading,excavating,construction of fences,etc.
FLOODWAY ➢ Due to the complexity of the numerous flow splits and shallow
depths,a floodway was not mapped. Therefore no rise in water
surface elevation is allowed within the entire floodplain.
FLOODPLAIN D Can alter to allow development as long as there is not a rise in
MODIFICATION water surface elevation.This means a property owner has to hire an
engineer to verify there is no rise in the water surface elevation.
FILL ➢ Allowed as long as there is not a rise in water surface elevation.
This means a property owner has to hire an engineer to verify there
is no rise in the water surface elevation.
NEW DEVELOPMENT D Allowed if there is not a rise in water surface elevation.This means
a property owner has to hire a professional engineer to verify there
is no rise in the water surface elevation. New development less
than 350 square feet does not need to do the"no-rise"calculations.
Detached garages if properly vented to allow passage of water do
not need to show the"no-rise"calculations.
MOBILE HOME ➢ New parks allowed if there is not a rise in water surface elevation.
PARKS This means a property owner has to hire an engineer to verify there
is no rise in the water surface elevation.Newly place mobile homes
must be on permanent foundations.
RESIDENTIAL/ D Allowed as long as the no-rise criteria can be met.This means a
COMMERCIAL property owner has to hire an engineer to verify there is no rise in
DEVELOPMENT the water surface elevation.
REMODELS ➢ Allowed to existing structures. If the cumulative improvements
over the life of the structure from July 1,2001 forward exceed 501/o
of the value of the structure,then the existing structure must be
brought up to code.
ADDITIONS ➢ Allowed to existing structures if there is not a rise in water surface
elevation.This means a property owner has to hire a professional
engineer to verify there is no rise in the water surface elevation.
Additions less than 350 square feet do not need to do the"no-rise"
calculations.
REDEVELOPMENT ➢ Allowed in existing developed areas as long as the no-rise criteria is
(remove and rebuild) met.This means a property owner has to hire a professional
engineer to verify there is no rise in the water surface elevation.
CRITICAL ➢ Not allowed in the 100-year or 500-year floodplains.
FACILITIES
VARIANCES ➢ Allowed for special circumstances.
LOWEST FLOOR OR ➢ 18 inches above 100-year water surface elevation for properties in
FLOODPROOFING the 100-year floodplain.Applicable to substantial improvement
ELEVATION remodels,new development,redevelopment,and additions.
Detached garages do not need to be elevated if properly vented.
05/22/2001 08:52 9764902174 AMrTH E 6EYF}? PACE 01
• 14038, l tIQ4 tr
aoss.,.e�srla
R Cdar.CO gmt
. tac 7rdoo¢1'N
To: PjyCcbu Fw 27.t-01u7
From: JudyMoya. Data SI12f2001
ra: tlo0dy)sia Pas"! 5
CC
17 Lftu t o For gw4ow a Pw"Corm we a Pimm K y o Pka.a RwAb
S a copy of a teller tug I received yesterday. That's riot much notice_
WWto tell anyone the consequarxes of tiffs action. PWw rwte tlfat
noodplaln regWations. R was my uWavaxkv#t theseware riot
witilout hearhgs. There has teen no outreach etc on this. Npr
Wm of tha cwuequanoes of this action
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60 'd Wd 10:20 0qM In-11-inr
City Manager's Office
City of Fort Collins
May 29,2001
Judith E.Meyer
420 South Howes Street,Suite 104
Fort Collins,CO 80521
Dear l ' 14d
Thanks for expressing your concerns regarding the floodplain in the Canal Importation basin. I
would like to provide you with some information to help clarify the issues you raised.
The purpose of floodplain regulations is to ensure that any new development or changes in
existing developed areas are done so flooding hazards are not made worse. Regarding the
enactment of the floodplain regulations in the Canal Importation basin,the existing city code
requires the enforcement of floodplain regulations if areas are(mown to be in either a floodplain
or a flooding problem area. The July 1 enforcement date was chosen to allow for advanced
notice.
The floodplain regulations that will go into effect on July 1,2001 are not the Poudre River
floodplain regulations. The regulations that will be used for the Canal Importation Basin are the
same floodplain regulations that are used in all other floodplains in Fort Collins,such as Old
Town,West Vine,Spring Creek,Fossil Creek,Dry Creek, Cooper Slough,and Boxelder Creek.
These regulations are in Chapter 10 of City Code_ After completion of the basin master plans for
the Canal Importation, Old Town and West Vine drainage basins,we will be reviewing the
floodplain regulations for those basins to determine if any changes are warranted.
The letter that was sent to you and all other properties in the Canal Importation floodplain was
our attempt to describe the implications of the floodplain regulations. If you or any of your
neighbors have questions about these regulations,please feel free to call Marsha Hilmes-
Robinson,the Cityb Floodplain Administrator, at 224-6036.
The Canal Importation Master Drainageway plan,which identified the floodplain areas,has been
in process for two years. The basin master plan identifies the capital improvements that will
remove properties from the floodplain. There has been considerable outreach done on this plan
during these two years. Two sets of public open houses,Nov. 16& 17, 1999 and Feb. 2&3,
2000 were held. A postcard was sent to all basin residents advertising the fiat open house and
then all residents who either called in and made comment or attended the meeting were sent a
mailer for the second open house. In the case of both open houses,advertisements were also
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6505 - FAX(970)224-6107
TDD(970)224-6001 • ww-w.fcgovcom
7n •I III nn.7R AMU TA-7 7_9no
May 29,2001
Page 2
placed in the newspaper ubout the upcn huuscs.Materials at the opcn houses included maps
showing the floodplain in the basin.The City has also been working with individual property
owners in the improvement areas as well. As you know,the plan was also taken to several of the
City's Boards and Commissions where a summary was distributed. The meeting on May 22,
2001 was a City Council work Session. The purpose of this meeting was to update City Council
on the Master Plan and to solicit their feedback. Citizen comments received during the outreach
for the master plan were provided to City Council. No action was taken at this meeting. The
City Council is currently scheduled to vote on the Master Plan on July 17,2001. During that
meeting,additional public comment will be accepted. If you have questions about the Master
Plan or the public process please contact Susan Hayes,Senior Stormwatea Engineer,at 416-
2233.
The Canal Importation Master Plan is a part of a Citywide program to mitigate flood hazards
where cost effective. This particular master plan is expensive because decades ago,development
was allowed in areas prone to flooding and without any drainage criteria.
We hope that this helps address some of the concerns that you have concerning the Canal
Importation Master Plan and its related floodplain.
Sincerely,
Jo Fischbach
City Manager
/khh
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Mike Smith,Fort Collins Utilities General Manager
3000 West Lake Street
Fort Collins, Ca 80521
May 24, 2001
Susan Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer
Marsha Hilmes Robinson, Floodplain Administrator
Fort Collins Utilities
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Your letter, "Notification of Floodplain Regulations in the Canal
Importation 100-year Floodplain.
Dear Ms. Hayes and Ms. Robinson;
Your letter has re-enforced the notion that not only is the city
administration bloated, but incompetence is rampant. My property
is on the upper side of the canal and the house is sufficiently higher
than the canal that flooding due to canal importation is an
impossibility. I have lived in the house for 33 years, since 1968,
and the basement has never been wet due to stormwater.
What the city conveniently forgets to mention is that it is partially
to blame for the significant flood damage due to the Pleasant Valley
Canal overflowing its banks during the flood of July, 1997. When
the stormwater bureaucracy improved the intersection of West Prospect
and Overland Trail, it installed under West Lake Street a two-feet
in diameter culvert in order to divert the runoff into the canal.
The stormwater bureaucracy also diverts the runoff from West Lake
through a City owned but neglected weed patch onto the rear of my
property. Odd as it may sound, this is probably the best available
solution. The rear of the lot is in range grass and no long-term damage
is done. This stormwater does not enter the Pleasant Valley Canal.
What I do object to is the City charging me $155 annually for this
privilege. The City should be giving me a modest fee for the use
of my property or vacate its weed patch.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert A. Schroeder
cc: Letters to the Editor
Fort Collins Coloradoan
P.O. Box 1577
Fort Collins, CO 80522
City Manager
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, 00 80521
Utilities
light & power • siormwater • wastewater • water
Cite of Fort Collins
June13,2OO1
Dr. Herbert A. Schroeder
3000 W. Lake Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Re: Your Letter Dated May 24, 2001
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
Thank you for your letter. 1 apologize for the delay in responding. Enclosed you will
find a detailed map showing the floodplain as it relates to your property. As you can see,
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is mapped as the floodplain since it is a major storm
runoff conveyance facility. You received a letter because a very small portion of your
lot, adjacent to the canal, is shown in the floodplain. As you verified in your letter, your
house, and the majority of your lot, are not within the floodplain.
The Canal Importation Basin master plan recommends improvements to reduce the
amount of storm runoff entering the irrigation canal, therefore reducing the amount of
overtopping of the canal and downstream flooding. Additional projects are recommended
to reduce the flooding basinwide. These improvements will be funded through the
stormwaier fees. You should have received notice of a public open house about the
master plan to be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2001. 11 will be held at Bennett Elementary
School, 1125 Bennett Road, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. We hope to see you there.
If you have questions about the enclosed information,please call me at 416-2233.
Sincerely,
Susan L D yes,P.E.
Senior Stonnwaier Engineer— Master Planning
Attachment
Cc: John Fischbach, City Manager (w/attachment)
700 Wood St. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6700 • FAX (970)221-6639 • TDD(970)224-600.1
email:utilitiesCci.fort-collins.co.us • wwNv.fcgov.com/utilifies!
Susan Hayes- stormwater Page 1
From: "ada Snyder"<adasnyder@msn.com>
To: "Susan Hayes"<utilities@ci.fort-collins.co.us>
Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: stormwater
Dear Ms. Hayes;
This letter is in response to your reply letter of June 13, 2001.The delay to my responding is due to my
being out of town. I attempted to e-mail you last week unsuccessfully.
Apparently you still don't get it. None of my property could ever be in the floodplain for the following
reasons:
1. The property is on the upper side of the canal. When the canal was constructed, a berm (or continuous
low mound) about one to one and a half feet high was built on the upper side of the canal.The original
intent for building this berm was to prevent excess stormwater from entering the canal.
2. The top of the berm is higher than the levee (or embankment)on the lower side of the canal. The levee
would be breached by any excess water in the canal before the berm is topped.
3.Should the levee be breached, the height of flood water in the area below the canal would need to be at
least ten feet before the berm is topped. This height would never be achieved because of continuous
runoff.
Completely ignored by you in your reply letter was the comment in my first letter about stormwater being
deliberately diverted onto my property.As stated in my letter, it is the simplest and most economical
option, and no damage of any significance occurs. This stormwater does not enter the canal because the
berm prevents this from happening. For allowing the city to dump stormwater onto my property I am
asking for a very modest compensation. What I am asking for compensation is that I not be charged a
stormwater fee and also that the city vacate its weedpatch between myself and the neighbor to the east. In
essence there would be not be any exchange of monies.
Finally, I would like to have you personally come and see for yourself what I have discussed in this letter.
This would clarify everything. Please give me a call at 484-7740 (home)or 491-7768 (work).
Sincerely yours,
Herbert A. Schroeder
MO. 0/./oi
VAA/3 AV JGf Okf og F00
�uL�i a of✓G `R �ro� & AV. 0L.
• .�rru'n aye 77Dyvt l..t�,�.�fu- Gf
-Job a1r da 6l-AJ,ajy eke i01 &XCAAnye
�r olrrun%�q art.eea, �C.t.�?rt.7�'
• lJa.«.f� fC tram L��u,/fa_ /loaf.
W4k,,, wtatn ha l Ize�t 6L i/liq o: ✓ UJ/Requ-
w ecdl 't nLa d �It n 7� ca//
peon-t k/u.wf bske �O•L�i �fri/' Ciwp.s � � ���
JUL-11-01 WED 09:45 AM F. 02 _
June Fit.2001
Mayor Ray Martinez
Councilman Kurt Kastein
Dear Sirs:
There has been something bothering me for a few weeks and finally 1 have centered in on what 3 I& it is the City's
letter concerning the Flood Plain Regulations in the Canal Importation 100 year floodplain.
Male batchff!
We came out here in July of 1970 on a one week house-hulling trip,as I was soon to be transferred to the Windsor
plant which was being built by Kodak At that time,there was about three or four home builders active in the Fort.
Everitt over by the lake at S. Lemay&Drake,someone just getting started In Thunderbird, Delnes over at Meadowlark,
and"Bartran who was Just getting started at Village West. We raked what We saw at village West, and Bit Bartran
promised.to have the tome,we eventually picked out,finished by Jan.1971. He kept his word. We checked with the
building dept.at city hall and talked to a couple of bankers,Mr.Hunter of Home Federal being one of them,and then
someone from United Bards over on College Ave. Both of the gentlemen attested to the fad that BW Sarno was an
excellent builder and that Usage West was to be a showcase for housing in Fort Collins. We were a little concerned
with the dams on Horsetooth Reservoir facisig out to this direction,but we bought the house anyway: Piet 1, Lot 03,
Village West. We are on the first cul-de-sac off S.Taft Hut Road in Village West. Our back yard goes out to S.Tar Hill
Road.
At that time,the Brown family used to winter sheep on their farm,as it was a Farm.....no housing....nothing but their
farm house over on Prospect Road, Btevins School on Taft,and Bauder School on Prospect. There was no other
housing urdii you gat dose to Overland Trail.
Then came Wheeler Really and Brown's Farts Subdivision, Al ono with that came one of our infamous storm water
retention areas,directly across Taft Hill Road from our lot.
Then came a very bad July night In 1997. By midngM,we had 77'of water in our basemen(. Every thing in our
basement,and i do mean ewything,went out to a Waste Management dumpster that we filled several times. Then
the pay off-our choice city said,'Oh,a five hundred years storm'.we could do nothing.
Baloney-the retention area behind our house is too shallow and the out takes too small. Even with your hole in the
ground up on Overland,I do not feel safe. Reason: too marry homes,rooftops,driveways and streets in Brown's
Farts Subdivision, and a very shallow retention pond on S_Taft Hill between Manchester Drive and Valley Forge Ave.
But,watt lt gets better-A few weeks ago,along came your letter with a copy of your flood plain regulations. A
masterpiece! Many politicians-many years before our present city hall crew-have done very foe about storm water
drainage,all over the city,and now guess what,many people downtown seem to be in the process of throwing the
whole thing back on the property owners.
Now,you tell me Mr.Mayor and Mr.Councilman,why the City of Fort Collins cannot provide these engineering
services to the residents of the flood plain.If we need such services to comply with your regulations? ft was the In-
adion of many dry councils that added to a problem that the Lord had a hand in. 1 cannot get to the Lord, but you
guys are local.
I am a little sorry this letter got so long,but really not very sorry....because.this is exactly how I feel. I am a Navy
combat vet of WWII, retired,on a foxed income,77 years old,my wife is a little older than I,we don't need this.
Hoping to hear horn you soon, I am
Francs R St John
2041 Manchester Dr.
Fort Collins,Colorado 80526
JUL-11-01 WED 09148 AN P, 03
June 6,2001
Mayor Ray Martinez
Councilman Kurt Kestein
Dear Sirs:
As I am the typist for my Father in Laws letter,I thought that 1 would take the liberty of bottom
lining his sentimerb.....as I do not wish to change a word of his letter.
My husband's family moved to the City of Fort Coffins in 1970,and into a home they had brdlt for
them In Vfllage West. At that time there was no concern regarding a flooding basement,because
there was no Ifl fatedrpooty designed retention pond directly west of them across Taft Hill Road.
With the development of Browns Farts Subdivision,directly west,came a shallow retention pond
with several inlets and one outlet. The size and potential capacity of this retention pond is
inadequate for the area K services. Was it it City engineer that designed this retention pond? Was
fl the Developer? Were there City planning criteria that needed to be met? One thing I do
know.....it certainly wasnl my in-laws responsibfldy.
With regards to the letter they most recently received: I do not believe that it is my in-laws
responsibility to hire an engineer for anything that they do on their lot,in order to compensate for
an error due to the Brown's Farm Subdivision development that took place~they Duet The
reason,after 31 years,that their lot is now designated as being in a flood plain is not because it is
In a valley nerd to a river that overflows when the rains get heavy....it is now designated in a flood
plain because the City/Developer did not plan well and runs the Broom Farts Storm Water drains to
an inadequate retention pond that overflowed during an extremely heavy rain in 1997...........and
thus flooded the basements of the homes nearby.
Please do not ask my in-laws to incur more expense,than they have thus far incurred,to fix an
error on the Chy'srDeveloper's part. They have already lost as they owned that was in the
basernenL its not just having to re-finish their basement area,but there were heirlooms and
articles with years of memories that can not be replaced. Wflh just a shrug,from the City on their
part regarding the retention pond,the City has found it easy to exonerate themselves from any
responsibility of miscalculation.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Ilse St_John
3449 Fieldstone Dr.
Fort Collins,CO 80525
JUL-11-01 WED 01:19 Ph P. 02 .
City Manager's Office
City of Fort Collins
lim
June 18,2001
Mr.Francis R. St. John
2041 Manchester Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dear Mr. St.John:
Thank you for your letter. Enclosed you will find a detailed floodplain determination map for
your property. As you can see, the 100-year floodplain encroaches onto a small portion of your
property. Your house,and the majority of your property,is not in the 100-year floodplain. This
map does not depict what occurred in the 1997 storm.
The Canal Importation Basin master plan has identified many areas of flooding caused by poor
planning in the past. Unfortunately,strict criteria for addressing the drainage impacts from new
development was not adopted until 1984. As you describe in your letter,much of the Canal
Importation Basin was developed prior to this. And since the adoption of higher rainfall criteria
in 1999.the limited drainage facilities in the basin are even more inadequate.
The City uses a variety of approaches to address flooding problems. Floodplain regulations
ensure the problems are not made worse by continuing development. We also prepare drainage
master plans to recommend improvements to fix the existing problems,oftentimes created by
poor planning in the past.
Council has recently reviewed and discussed the proposed master plan for the Canal Importation
Basin. The master plan recommends a variety of improvements to reduce the amount of flooding
in the basin. Building bigger detention ponds, and larger channels and pipes will reduce the
problems significantly at a great cost. Enlarging the detention pond across the street from your
property(the Manchester Pond)was evaluated. Since streets already surround the pond,it is not
possible to add volume by making the pond area larger. Increasing the volume can also be
achieved by lowering the pond or increasing the size of the outlet pipe. Analysis showed the cost
of doing either of these would be prohibitive because the pipe would have to be extended to
Spring Creek, south of Drake Road. We have been able to reduce the volume of water that
reaches the pond by intercepting the water west of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and
diverting it to Spring Creek. This helps the Manchester Pond operate better,but does not
eliminate the overtopping of the pond.
'00 LaPorte Avenue - P.O.Hox 560 - Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 - (970)Z?1.6503 - F.AX(970)224.6107
TIM(970):24-6001 - w- ,% .fcgovcom
JUL-11-Ul WCU Ul:ta rn P. 03
June lS.2001
Page 2
I hope this addresses your concerns. I understand you have attended the open houses and spoken
with Utilities staff. Your interest and participation in the master planning process have been
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
9.��
Jo F.Fischbach
City Manager
Attachment
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Carolyn Ilse St.John
JUL-11-Ul WhU U1:2U rn F. U1
Mayor
City of Fort Collins
good
June 14, 2001
Francis R. St.John
2041 Manchester Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Dcar Mr. St.John:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the City's
Flood Plain Regulations. I can understand your frustration and appreciation you sharing
your thoughts with City Council and me.
i have asked City Manager John F.Fischbach to respond to your concerns. He will be in
touch with you in the near future. He can 21SO he reached by phone at 221-6505 or email:
ifischbacht'a:fasov.com should you wish to talk to him directly.
Sincerely,
Ray Martinez
Mayor
/khh
cc: City Council Members
John F.Fischbach, City Manager
Carolyn St. John
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)2214505 • FAX(970)224-6107
Utilities
light& power • stormwater • wastewater • water
City of Fort Collins dial
June 11,2001 �� IavY
Re: Canal Importation Basin Floodplain and Master Plan `
Dear Resident/Owner: a
Last month we sent you a letter notifying you that all or part of your property is located in the
Canal Importation Basin 100-year floodplain. You also received a summary sheet of the
floodplain regulations that will take effect on July 1, 2001. This information has generated a lot
of good questions. We'd like to share this information with everyone, since you may have the
same questions,too. Enclosed you will find a sheet with frequently asked questions and their
answers. We hope this clarifies any issues you may have. If you still have additional questions,
please contact either Marsha Hilmes-Robinson or Susan Hayes at the numbers listed below.
On May 22,2001 we presented the Canal Importation Basin Master Plan to City Council at their
work session. This was an opportunity to receive input and direction on the plan before we bring
the plan to Council for final approval. In general,the technical components of the master plan,
(the projects proposed to reduce flooding problems),are supported by Council. Council was also
• presented with funding options to pay for citywide drainage improvements. Based on Council
feedback, staff will proceed with final adoption of the Canal Importation Basin Master Plan. The
plan is scheduled to go to Council for adoption on Tuesday,July 17,2001. At this meeting
Council will also be presented with a resolution to adopt a stormwater financial plan which
recommends a 25-year construction schedule funded on a pay-as-you-go basis with some initial
debt financing to construct high priority projects. This will result in an increase to the stormwater
fees. The July 17,2001 meeting is a public meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. and held in Council
Chambers, 300 W.LaPorte Avenue.
In addition, we are hosting a public open house so you can personally visit with us and get
information about the master plan, floodplain regulations,or the proposed fee increases.There
will be no formal presentation,so please join us anytime during the open house.
Tuesday,June 19,2001
3-7p.m.
Bennett Elementary School
1125 Bennett Road
Sincerely,
Susan
y� Marsha Hilmes Robinson
Senior Stormwater Engineer Floodplain Administrator
Master Plan Project Manager 224-6036
416-2233 mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com
sha es fcgov.com
700 Wood St. • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522 0580 • (970)221-6700 • FAX(970)221-6619 • TDD(970)224-6003
email:utilities@d.fort-collins.co.us • www.fcgov.com/utilities/
CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN FLOODPLAIN
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
I. Vas the 1997 flood used to map the floodplain?
No. The 100-year design storm was used. It is based on 3.67 inches of rain falling over a 2-
hour period.
2. Is the Canal Importation floodplain a federally designated, Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA)floodplain?
No. It is a City-designated floodplain just like the Old Town, West Vine, and Fossil Creek
floodplains. This floodplain will not be shown on the FEMA flood insurance rate maps.
3. Why is the City mapping a floodplain that FEMA has not mapped?
FEMA only maps the floodplains that are generated from the larger drainage basins.
However,FEMA encourages communities to identify additional flood hazards that may exist
and then apply floodplain regulations to those areas for floodplain management purposes.
4. What is the purpose of floodplain regulations?
The main purposes of floodplain regulations are to protect the health and safety of citizens
and minimize property damage when a flood happens. Floodplain regulations ensure new
development does not make the flooding problem worse, and any additions or remodels to
existing structures are done so additional damages don't occur to the structure.
5. Are the regulations that are being applied the same ones that are being used for the
Poudre River?
No. The regulations are the standard regulations that are used for all floodplains in Fort
Collins other than the Poudre River.
6. Will 1 be required to purchase flood insurance?
Maybe. Since the Canal Importation basin is outside of a FEMA floodplain,then the
federally mandated flood insurance requirement for federally backed loans is not applicable.
it is up to the lending institution to decide whether they will require flood insurance or not in
the Canal Importation basin. It is staffs position that if a property is located in an area that
has the potential for flooding,then it is a good idea (not a requirement of the city) for that
property owner to have flood insurance.
7. Because I'm not in a FEMA floodplain, I can't buy flood insurance.
That is not true. Anyone in Fort Collins can purchase flood insurance no matter where they
are located.
8. V►'hat are my chances of being flooded?
If you are in the I00-year floodplain, you have a I% chance in any given year of being
flooded by a I00-year storm. Over your 30-year mortgage, you have a 26%chance of being
flooded. As a comparison, there is only a 5% chance that your house will catch fire during
that same 30-year period. This is why flood insurance is recommended. Some properties
have a higher risk of flooding because they are in areas where even smaller storms cause
damage.
9. The flooding in ibis area is different than in some parts of town because it involves
spills from the irrigation ditches and the eater sometimes flows down the street instead
of a stream channel. Is this really a floodplain?
Yes. A floodplain is defined as any area that is inundated by overland flow of water. It does
not matter where the water comes from. The flooding in this area is just as much of a
concern as any other floodplain and maybe more so because many people are unaware of the
flood hazard and thus they are at even greater risk.
10. 1 didn't get damaged during the 1997 storm,which was called the 500-year storm. So
how can I be in the 100-year floodplain?
Notices went to owners and residents of all properties which showed even a small pan of the
property in the 100-year floodplain, or if the floodplain was touching the property line.
Therefore,the structure on the property may not be affected by the floodplain. We want to
ensure everyone is aware of the potential risk of flooding on any pan of their property. You
are welcome to contact us at 221-6700 to get a floodplain determination specific to your
property.
In addition, the I00-year design storm we used to develop the floodplain is different from the
1997 storm. We use a short duration,high-intensity storm which is the normal type of severe
storm we can expect along the Front Range. These storms can cause high flows very
quickly. This can cause deeper water than a longer duration,less intense storm (such as
1997) even though the total amount of rainfall is much higher.
11. The only damage 1 got in the 1997 flood was from the sewer backing up or groundwater
seeping into my basement. Will the proposed improvements solve these problems?
The proposed projects should help reduce the sewer back-up problem. In 1997 the sanitary
sewer system was overwhelmed by the amount of water which drained into it from flooded
basements. This type of flooding will be reduced as projects are constructed. Groundwater
problems are harder to predict and solve. Drainage projects may not solve this issue.
Property owners can take positive actions to prevent problems from other sources than
surface flooding. For example: provide positive drainage away from your foundation, extend
down spouts, install a backflow (check) valve on your sanitary sewer service line.
12. The newspaper said that there are approximately 700 structures in the floodplain and
that the City was going to remove all but 65 structures from the floodplain. Does this
mean you are going to buy my house?
When we said, "remove"we did not mean buy the structures. We meant there would be
structural improvements done to eliminate the floodplain from those properties and thus they
would no longer be designated as being in the floodplain. We do not plan to buy any
structures. There would be 65 structures still mapped in the floodplain after the
improvements are completed. We apologize for the confusion in the language that was used.
13. If I disagree with the floodplain map, can I get it changed?
Yes. The floodplain maps are based on the 2-foot topographic information we have
available. Property owners can provide more detailed survey information on their lot if they
would like to show the property is actually higher than the water surface elevation shown on
the floodplain map.
Canal Importation
Open House
June 2001
Comments
Ewing R Hutchins
1612 Leesdale Court
482-7908
Perhaps,when planning/construction is far enough along re: flood control actions,video(s)and/or
televised programs could be presented to the public in order to keep said public updated on
progress(and completed projects)!?
Thomas Maloney
1301 City Park Ave.
493-2769
Will the floodplain region near the intersection of Bennett and CPA include the land for sale
across the street(Bennett)from the Bennett school(? acres).
Suzanne Oliphant
484-5851
When Fairbrooke Tract A was approved,Bill Neal of Kingston Assoc's. said he would pay to
pipe the irrigation flows. (Prospect Rd.to Somerville) * verify Dev.Agmt. to see if this is
included. Apparently said this only @ mtg. May not be in Dev. Agmt.
Anonymous telephone comment
Suggest digging the irrigation ditches deeper and perhaps just a little wider,the way they were
around 20 years ago. It might not be a cure-all but it might hold more water and eliminate some
of the flooding. Just wondering,thanks.
Susan Hayes - Re: Flood lain Regulations Questions e 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "stankidder@home.com"@FCI.GWIA
Date: Mon, May 21,2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Floodplain Regulations Questions
Dear Mr. Kidder,
Thank you for contacting us with your questions. The responses are below. If you have any other
questions please give me a call at 416-2233 or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
>>>"Stan Kidder" <stankidder@home.com>05/19 6:28 PM >>>
Dear Ms. Hayes:
In your notification letter of May 14,you invited questions, and 1 have
a few.
1. 1 presume that I shouldn't be alarmed by your notification and that
my property value won't go to zero as a result of being in the
floodplain, correct?
The actual floodplain is mapped in the street in front of your home. We have tried to notify adjacent
properties so they are aware of the hazard. You are correct that even If your property is in a floodplain its
value does not go to zero.
2.What exactly is "water surface elevation,"and how does an engineer
determine whether there has been a"rise" in it? I searched the Web site
mentioned in the letter, but I couldn't find a definition or an
explanation.
The"water surface elevation"indicates how deep the water is. We use a computer model to determine
how deep the water is. If obstructions are placed in the water the water will get"pushed"somewhere else
and make it deeper. Think of a full bathtub,then adding bricks until the water overflows.
3. In the 1997 flood, no water got in my house. It came close but didn't
get to the house. Does this mean that my property might not actually be
in the floodplain? Should I seek some kind of an
exemption/variance/waiver? As I answered in#1, the floodplain is mapped in the street in front of your
house. I don't see a need to request a variance, but we will send you a floodplain determination letter for
your files. Thanks for the information about the 1997 water level. We have mapped the 100-year
floodplain,which is lower than the 1997 flood,therefore the water level should also be lower. Looks like
that's the case here.
Thanks in advance for your answers. I expect that you will be busy.
Stan Kidder
2318 Manchester Court
CC: Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
Susan Hayes-Re:Canal Importation 100-year Floodplain Page 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "Olphnt@aol.com"@FCI.GWIA
Date: Tue, May 22,2001 11:19 AM
Subject: Re:Canal Importation 100-year Floodplain
Dear Suzanne,
Thanks for your e-mail. I know you have been a very active participant during the preparation of this
master plan. One major goal of the projects in the master plan is to eliminate the uncontrolled overtopping
of the irrigation canals in this basin, including the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. I know you have
attended the open houses and have seen the proposed improvements,but I will also send you a copy of
the Executive Summary.
Council won't be adopting the plan tonight; it is only a work session. You are welcome to provide your
comments to Council about the proposed plan. If you have any questions give me a call at 416-2233.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
>>> <Olphnt@aol.com>05/22 8:51 AM >>>
Dear Susan,
I have been notified that my home at 2712 Williamsburg CL has now been
placed in the 100-year floodplain.
This has only been done as a result of several major errors on the part of a
developer and the City. A developer, Kingston and Assoc(Bill Neal),
received approval in 1995 from Planning and Zoning to dump the stormwater
form his development into the PVL&C (there are two 15 inch storm drain
pipes), but there was supposed to be a pipe built to carry the Irrigation
water. The developer was supposed to pay for this. The development was
finished and to my knowledge the developer never paid one cent towards the
cost of the pipe. There was also a 18 inch error on the bottom elevation of
the canal relocation. In a letter I have written to the city,the engineer
states that the Culvert at Prospect must have droped 18 inches. There is a
Concrete bottom in the middle section of the culvert.
Then, the CITY install in 1996 or 1997 a storm drain on Prospect Road via 2
8-ft intakes and a 30 inch pipe.
Together,the 30-inch pipe and two 15-inch pipes deliver more storm water in
a 100-year storm than the Irrigation Canal is designed to carry(without an
any irrigation water).
The CITY also installed a 30-inch Storm Pipe at Lake St. and Overland Trail
which also contributes to the canal.
ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE 1990'S AND MUST BE CORRECTED.
STORM WATER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DUMPED INTO THE IRRIGATION CANAL AS IT DOES
NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CARRY THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS THAT STORM WATER CREATES.
THANK YOU
SUZANNE OLIPHANT
2712 WILLIAMSBURG CT.
FT.COLLINS
970-484-5851
CC: Bob Smith
i Susan Hayes-Re: 100 year floodplain page 1
From: Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
To: "ronstein20@home.com"@FCI.GWIA; Susan Hayes
Date: Thu, May 31, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: 100 year floodplain
Dear Mr. Steinbach,
Again, thanks for your e-mail. Hopefully, I can provide some clarification to help answer some of your
questions about the floodplain regulations. The Substantial Improvement Policy(50%improvement to
your structure)is further clarified in the Citys Floodplain Management Plan that was adopted by City
Council in 1995. i have attached a copy of that policy for your reference. What that policy says is that an
addition on to the back of your house does not count toward the substantial improvement amount so long
as the addition is elevated 18"above the 100-year water surface elevation as required by City Code. The
reasoning is that the new part of the house is protected from flood damage. However, if you do make a
substantial improvement to the existing house by either remodeling or adding a second story,then it is
considered a rehabilitation and yes the substantial improvement policy would apply. The reason for this
regulation is that it helps to protect the improvements that you have made to your structure. If you are
spending $75,000 or more on improvements to your house,you probably don't want those to be damaged
by a flood. You are correct that K you were to reach the 50% improvement threshold,that would mean
that you would have to fill in the basement and possibly elevate the house. However, I can tell you that to
date we have not had any residential structures that have met this criteria and the same regulations have
been in place in other parts of the City, including Old Town since 1993. The other option that you could
pursue if you were to meet the substantial improvement threshold is to request a variance from the Water
Board. Since it is a City designated floodplain, they may grant a variance to this requirement and allow
you to floodproof your structure instead.
If you any additional questions, please feel free to e-mail or contact me directly at 224-6036.
Sincerely,
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson
Floodplain Administrator
>>> Susan Hayes 05/30 8:28 AM>>>
Mr. Steinbach,
Thanks for your e-mail. Both Marsha and I will be responding to your questions. Marsha is in a training
seminar this morning so will respond later.
With respect to the technical aspects, the floodplain we have mapped is based on the 100-year floodplain,
not the 1997 storm. Our 100-year storm is defined as 3.67 inches of rain falling over a two hour period.
The mapping has been done on 2-ft contour mapping so does not indicate the elevation of every home
along the corridor. So it is possible to have water up on a lawn, but not into the home. We have received
a few comments from other residents in the area about their experiences in 1997 and will be reviewing our
mapping one more time to make sure it depicts, as accurately as possible, the 100-year floodplain. I hope
this addresses your technical questions. Marsha will get back to you about the floodplain regulations.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>> "Ron Steinbach"<ronstein20@home.com> 06126 5:36 PM >>>
Ms. Hayes:
I live at 1345 W. Mountain Avenue. We recently recieved information designating virtually all of the homes
along Mountain Avenue west of Shields as being within the newly defined/updated 100 year flood plain.
Susan Hayes-Re: 100 year flood lam P
1 have a couple of concerns:
1.The basis for this determination was the 1997 flood. Which was extremely harsh and resulted in minor
infiltration of water into our basement primarily due to poor landscape design,which I have since
remedied. What is confusing to me is that everything I have seen, including the information on the Fort
Collins website(see attached file) indicates that the a997 flood exceeded expectations for a 500 year
flood. Since the water level did not exceed the ground level of our residence I do not see how the City can
claim that we should be in a 100 year flood plain. Can you please explain your determination?
Second,after a cursory review of Chapter 10 of the municipal code,some of the remedies seem absurd.
If,for example, I was to do a major renovation, such as adding a second story or expanding my house to
add a couple of rooms and the cost exceeded 50%of the current value, I would be reugired to raise the
level of the lowest floor including the basement 18"above ground level. In order to accomplish a major
renovation 1 would have to fill in the basement, requiring a major change to the heating and water systems
since the furnace and the water heater are in the basement.
I am concerned that the 100 year flood plain designation,while designed to protect future inhabitants,
appears to result in some rather bizarre conclusions.
I look forward to hearing form you.
thanks
Ron Steinbach
CC: Bob Smith; Charles Wanner
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY
Substantial improvement is defined as any combination of repairs,reconstructions,rehabilitations,
additions, or other improvement of a structure,taking place during the life of the structure,the
cumulative cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the
start of construction of the improvement. This term included repairs to structures that have incurred
substantial damage,regardless of the actual repair work performed.The term does not,however,include
either:
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state
or local health, sanitary,or safety code specifications which have been identified
by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to
assure safe living conditions or
(2) Any alteration of a historic structure,provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure.
Market value is for the structure only,not the land. A substantially improved/damaged structure,or
substantial addition to a structure,is required to comply with all applicable floodplain regulations.
Market value of the existing structure is determined prior to any improvement and based on the most
current market values at the time of application.The total cost of the improvement must also be
determined.
In order to provide for uniform administration of floodplain regulations in Fort Collins,the following
procedure for determining market value of an existing structure is recommended.
a. The Larimer County Tax Assessment for the structure is used for determining market value.
Using the tax assessment should result in a conservative estimate of market value for the
determination of substantial improvement.
b. Alternately, the applicant may provide a determination of the market value of the existing
structure by a professional appraiser. The cost of appraisal is the responsibility of the applicant.
The following definitions apply to three general types of alterations that are impacted by substantial
improvement.
Additions are defined as an alteration to an existing structure which results in any increase in the
structures floor area. If an existing structure in the floodplain is physically enlarged and the cost of the
enlargement equals or exceeds 50%of the market value of the structure before enlargement,then the
existing structure is considered to have been substantially improved and is subject to City Code and NFIP
requirements (i.e., elevation). However, if the area of the enlargement (addition)complies with
applicable regulations,the existing portion of the structure does not have to be elevated.
1
Reconstruction(repair of damaged structures)is constituted by the rebuilding of an existing structure
which has been partially or completely destroyed by any cause(fire,wind, flood,etc...),without
increasing the floor area of the structure.If a partially destroyed structure is reconstructed and the cost of
the reconstruction equals or exceeds 50%of the market value of the structure before the damage,then the
rebuilt structure is considered substantially improved and is subject to applicable floodplain regulations.
The cost of repair includes all damages sustained and does not reflect a level of repairs,even if the actual
cost of repairs is reduced below the 50%threshold.
Rehabilitation includes any improvements and repairs which are made to the interior and exterior of an
existing structure,but which do not result in any increase in the floor area of the structure.Any
rehabilitation of an existing structure,the cost of which equals or exceeds 50%of the market value of the
structure,is subject to the same floodplain management requirements as new construction.
It must be recognized that there are cases where the three above mentioned types of improvements are
combinations thereof.In the case where two types of alterations are combined to constitute a substantial
improvement,the more restrictive category should be used to apply floodplain management provisions.
Second story additions are interpreted as a rehabilitation since it would normally involve tearing off the
existing roof. If the cost of constructing the second story, including removal of the roof, is equal to or
greater than 50%of the market value of the existing structure before the alteration,the entire structure
must comply with floodplain regulations(i.e.,elevation).
Costs to be included (see attached)for the calculation of substantial improvement/damage means all
structural costs,as well as all finish materials,built-in appliances,hardware,in addition to profit and
overhead.This includes lighting fixtures,built-in appliances,interior moldings,paneling,tiling,wall-to-
wall carpet over subflooring,built-in cabinets,etc.
Accessory Structures such as a detached garage or shed,need not be elevated or floodproofed above the
base flood elevation as long as the structure is used solely for parking or storage of equipment used in
connection with the dwelling.A newly placed detached garage or shed:
• cannot be used for human habitation
• must have low flood damage potential
• must have minimal resistance to flood flows
• must be adequately anchored
• must have utilities elevated above the base flood elevation
• cannot violate floodway encroachment standards
• must be situated to least block flood flow
• must be built using unfinished and flood resistant materials
2
Susan Hayes- Responses to Questions at Mayor's meeting with the Chamber Pa e 1
From: Bob Smith
To: John Fischbach
Date: Mon,Jun 4,2001 8:16 AM
Subject: Responses to Questions at Mayor's meeting with the Chamber
Attached you will find responses to questions that were raised when the Mayor met with the Chamber on
May 25, 2001. The response to question number 1 took a little longer to put together since it took FEMA a
while to get back to us on it. We wanted to ensure our response was consistent with current FEMA policy.
We found that our previous response to the flood insurance requirement was accurate.
If you have any questions on these please feel free to let me know.
Bob
CC: Jim Hibbard; Marsha Hilmes; Mike Smith; Susan H...
The following is in response to questions that were raised during the Mayor's meeting
with Chamber members on 5-25-01.
uestion
One member lives in the area of the flood mitigation Canal Importation Basin
drainageway plan and received a letter of notice that she was in the floodplain area
now. There were a lot of strong sentiments about how this plan now de-values the
properties in those areas because of the new floodplain map. They recognize that
the plan is to take them out of the floodplain, but for the next 15 years,they will be
considered in the floodplain, consequently insurance for floods will have an effect
and people won't be as apt to buy homes there because it is considered to be in the
floodplain. There are some economic consequences of the land value. Mary Braton,
an insurance representative, disagrees with staffs view that the homeowners won't
be required to buy flood insurance.
Response
There may be some impact to land values with the designation of the floodplain;
however,this is the first time that a floodplain has been determined in the Canal
Importation basin. Other basins in the city have had floodplains designated as far back as
1979.
In regard to flood insurance, staff has stated that according to FEMA regulations if the
property is located outside of any federally designated floodplain,which the Canal
Importation basin is, then the federally mandated flood insurance requirement for
federally backed loans is not applicable. Lenders may require flood insurance no matter
which floodplain, locally designated or federally designated, the property is located in. If
the property in question is in a federally designated floodplain, such as Spring Creek,Dry
Creek, Poudre River, and Cooper Slough-Box elder, then the lending institution is
required to make sure the property has flood insurance on it. If the property is outside the
federal floodplain, such as Canal Importation, Old Town, Fossil Creek,West Vine,
Evergreen Park- Greenbriar,McCellands—Mail Creek, and Foothills, then it's up to the
lending institution to require flood insurance or not. It is staffs position that if a property
is located in an area that has the potential for flooding, then it is a good idea(not a
requirement of the city) for that property owner to have flood insurance and to be aware
that the property does have a flood risk.
Question
There is a question about the standards we use for the determining a floodplain.
Are we using FEMA's criteria,or our own design? Are the rain standards based on
500-year or 100-year protection?
Response
The City's consultant performed the detailed engineering work to determine where the
floodplain is located using aerial mapping supplemented with ground surveying. The
criteria or procedures used to determine the floodplain are consistent with those used by
FEMA and are used nation wide. For comparison purposes the City generated
floodplains are generally more detailed than those generated by FEMA. The 100-year
design storm was used to generate the floodplain.
Susan Hayes - Re: 100 year floodplain Pape 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "ronstein20@home.com"@FC1.GWIA
Date: Wed,Jun 6, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: 100 year floodplain
Mr. Steinbach,
Thanks again for contacting us. You bring up very good points which I hope I will address adequately.
The reason for updating the Canal Importation Basin master plan was the adoption of higher rainfall
criteria in 1999. The projects shown in the original master plan were not adequate for the higher flows
generated from the higher rainfall.
You also raised the question about the comparison of the Canal Importation basin 100-year floodplain
mapping along the West Mountain area to the flooding that occurred in 1997. The response to this
question is complicated and really gets at the complexity of comparing the characteristics of rainfall events
and what we eventually see on the ground.
The amount of runoff generated from a rainstorm is dependent on many things, but the three main
components are:
1. Amount of rainfall: this is the total rain which falls during the entire storm.
Typically the bigger the storm (in terms of its frequency)the more total rainfall there is.
2. Duration of the storm:this is how long the rain lasts. All storms are different and
the definition of a storm frequency(10-year, 100-year, 500-year, etc.) must include not only the amount of
rainfall,but also its duration. When doing stormwater modeling we choose a storm duration which
matches the weather characteristics of the area and the size of the basin. For Fort Collins, the most
severe storms are typically short duration thunderstorms;therefore,we use a 2-hour storm.
3. Intensity of the rainfall: this is how hard it rains during the storm. Intensities
typically vary during a storm. For a given amount of rainfall, the intensities increase when the storm is
shorter in duration. Rainfall intensities also determine the peak runoff flows in a basin. These flows are
used to map the floodplain.
So, what does this translate to for the 100-year floodplain and the 1997 storm? The 100-year floodplain is
based on flows generated from a short duration, high intensity storm. The 2-hour storm,which produces
3.67 inches of rain, is assumed to have intensities of almost 10 inches per hour during a short interval of
the storm. This results in high peak flows for a short duration. Analyzing the data from 1997,a very
different storm appears. Although the total rainfall (a bit over 6 inches in the area west of Mountain)was
high, it came over a 6-hour period. The most intense 2-hour period generated about 4.5 inches of rain,
with the highest intensity of about 5 inches per hour during a short interval of the storm. This didn't
generate the same high flows we'd expect from our 100-year design storm. What this means on the
ground is, the street system was able to handle the smaller flows, but the water ran for a longer period of
time. Though we suffered much worse for total rainfall,we didn't suffer the very high intensities which
result in really high flows.
We will continue to evaluate the area along Mountain and Oak to ensure there are no fatal flaws in the
data. And it may be worthwhile to obtain more detailed survey information in this area to help better define
the shallow flooding areas. If you have any information about what specifically happened on your property
in 1997 we would appreciate this information.
For this area we are satisfied we are using the appropriate design storm to calculate the flows and map
the floodplain, and are comfortable with why the 1997 flows would be less than what we are using for
mapping.
I have been invited to attend the City Park Neighborhood Association's annual meeting on June 20th to
Susan Hayes-Re: 100 vear floodplain P
talk about this issue. We also plan to have a general open house about the master plan and floodplain
regulations on Tuesday,June 19th,from 3-7 p.m. at Bennett Elementary School. I hope we have the
opportunity to meet personally at one of these events.
In the meantime, if you have any additional questions please let me know. Thanks for your interest.
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>>"Ron Steinbach"<ronstein20@home.com>06/03 5:01 PM >>>
Ms. Hayes: Thank you for your quick response,and Marsha's. I guess I
would have to say that your letter of May 14th was misleading. The letter
both begins and ends with reference to the 1997 flood as the reason for
action. I inferred from those statements that the 1997 flood was the primary
cause of action on the Citys part. I guess something that would be useful
is further explanation of the relaionship of the 1997 flood to the"Canal
Importatation Floodplain Area." What amount of rainfall did that region
receive in 1997?
1 appreciate the City's efforts to identify hazards and make the City a
safer place, but I guess I am not comfortable yet with the information to
understand how serious the problem is; it seems like we have already
survived much worse.
thanks
Ron Steinbach
--Original Message—
From:"Susan Hayes"<shaves(a)fcaov.com>
To: <ronstein20Ca)home.com>
Cc: <CWANNER cDfcaov.com>; <MHILMESROBINSON cDfcoov.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: 100 year floodplain
Mr.Steinbach,
Thanks for your e-mail. Both Marsha and I wili be responding to your
questions. Marsha is in a training seminar this morning so will respond
later.
With respect to the technical aspects,the floodplain we have mapped is
based on the 100-year floodplain, not the 1997 storm. Our 100-year storm is
defined as 3.67 inches of rain falling over a two hour period. The mapping
has been done on 2-ft contour mapping so does not indicate the elevation of
every home along the corridor. So it is possible to have water up on a
lawn, but not into the home. We have received a few comments from other
residents in the area about their experiences in 1997 and will be reviewing
our mapping one more time to make sure it depicts, as accurately as
possible,the 100-year floodplain. I hope this addresses your technical
questions. Marsha will get back to you about the floodplain regulations.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
Susan Hayes- Re: 100 year floodplain Page 3 1
>>>"Ron Steinbach"<ronstein20Cilhome.com>05/26 5:36 PM>>>
Ms. Hayes:
I live at 1345 W. Mountain Avenue. We recently recieved information
designating virtually all of the homes along Mountain Avenue west of Shields
as being within the newly defined/updated 100 year flood plain.
I have a couple of concerns:
1.The basis for this determination was the 1997 flood. Which was extremely
harsh and resulted in minor infiltration of water into our basement
primarily due to poor landscape design,which I have since remedied. What
is confusing to me is that everything I have seen, including the information
on the Fort Collins website(see attached file) indicates that the a997
flood exceeded expectations for a 500 year flood. Since the water level did.
not exceed the ground level of our residence I do not see how the City can
claim that we should be in a 100 year flood plain. Can you please explain
your determination?
Second, after a cursory review of Chapter 10 of the municipal code,some of
the remedies seem absurd. If,for example, I was to do a major renovation,
such as adding a second story or expanding my house to add a couple of rooms
and the cost exceeded 50%of the current value, I would be reuqired to raise
the level of the lowest floor including the basement 18"above ground level.
In order to accomplish a major renovation I would have to fill in the
basement, requiring a major change to the heating and water systems since
the furnace and the water heater are in the basement.
1 am concerned that the 100 year flood plain designation,while designed to
protect future inhabitants, appears to result in some rather bizarre
conclusions.
I look forward to hearing form you.
thanks
Ron Steinbach
CC: Bob Smith; Charles Wanner; Jim Hibbard; Marsha ...
Susan Hayes- Re: Floodplain Regulations Pa e 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "jancolo@hotmail.com"@FCI.GWIA
Date: Wed, Jun 6, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Floodplain Regulations
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lynch,
Thanks for contacting us about your concerns over the 100-year floodplain designation. You will be
receiving in the mail a detailed floodplain determination letter which shows in much better detail the
floodplain on Scarborough Drive. This map shows the floodplain is mainly in the street in front of your
house and just barely touches your property. That is why you received the letter. Your house and the vast
majority of your property are not mapped in the 100-year floodplain. I hope this alleviates your concerns.
If, after receipt of the letter,you have any additional questions please contact me.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>>"Janice Lynch"<jancolo@hotmail.com> 06/06 11:52 AM >>>
To Whom it may concern:
This letter is in response to the notification of Floodplain Regulations in
the Canal Importation 100-year Floodplain. We are residentlowners of 1630
Scarborough Drive which according to your map is located in the Canal
Importation Drainage Basin.
We are aware that the community suffered extensive losses due to the 1997
flood caused by an intense thunderstorm. However, our home, because it was
built on a rise, sustained NO FLOOD DAMAGE. Our basement and garden levels
stayed completely dry. To our knowledge none of the homes on our street,
between Constitution and Rolland Moore Park, suffered any damage, because of
their elevation and location, up and away from the street.
We ask,"Did any of the engineers that deemed this area a floodplain
actually visit the area of speak with any of the homeowners?" We suspect
the answer would be no We contend that if our property escaped the 1997
flood without damage or claim, that it would survive future occurrences.
We believe this classification is unwarranted and unnecessary for the above
reasons. If approved it will devalue our property and place several costly
restriction upon it should we choose to remodel,add-on, or sell.. We
vigorously oppose this designation as inappropriate, and request review and
reclassification of our poroperty and street.
Sincerely,
Dennis and Janice Lynch
1630 Scarborough Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at htto://explorer.msn.com
CC: Bob Smith; Lori Clements-Grote; Marsha Hilmes
Susan Hayes-HI and questions Page 1
From: "Linda J.McNamara"<lindam@colostate.edu>
To: Sue kenney<skenney@ci.fort-collins.co.us>
Date: Wed,Jun 20,2001 9:46 AM
Subject: HI and questions
Hi Sue-hope your summer is going well. I've gotten out to ELC a couple
times to do birding, but never as often as I want!
I have a city question for you and maybe you need to direct me to someone
else.The Coloradoan had a front page article in its May 27 issue that
talked about the flood protection plan.As part of the plan it mentioned
that the city would install"vertical concrete retaining walls to increase
the city s capacity"for new Mercer Canal between Elizabeth Street and
Spring Creek. I'm wondering if this means that the ditches in the Red Fox
Meadow Natural Area will be lined with concrete as part of this plan?
I have a selfish reason for hoping this isn'ttrue, because our house backs
up to Red Fox Meadows and we don't want to have to stare at 2 ditches full
of concrete. But beyond that, as a birder, I don'tthink concrete will
enhance a natural area for habitat.
Are you aware of the storm drainage plan and its impact on the natural
areas?Where could I find out the extent of the concrete plans for the
ditches? Thanks for any help you can provide.
Hope you're getting out for some fun vacation this summerl
Linda J. McNamara,Associate Director
Academic Computing and Networking Services
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-2028
lindam@colostate.edu
ph: 970-491-2820
fax: 970-491-1958
Susan Hayes- Re: Mountain/Oak Floodplain Designation Page 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "bmitchel@engr.colostate.edu"@FCI.GWIA; "cwanner@...
Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Mountain/Oak Floodplain Designation
Dear Ms. Mitchell,
Thanks for your e-mail. I've responded to each of your questions below. I am leaving on vacation and will
be out next week, but If you have any follow-up questions you can contact Bob Smith at
bsmith@fcgov.com.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
>>> Beth Mitchell <bmitchel@engr.colostate.edu>06/21 10:46 AM >>>
Susan and Chuck,
My husband and I reside at 1508 West Mountain, and were at the meeting
last night. I'm reading the"Executive Summary of the Canal Importation
Basin Master Drainage Plan". I've discovered a couple of things that
bring the priority of our project into question:
-"The Oak/Mtn and Eliz/Constitution corridors have nearly the worst
flooding potential in the basin"page 6
-The Oak/Mtn corridor has by far the largest#of structures that would
be damaged (and this is not counting anything east of Shields.The
dollar estimate of damage is significantly higher than any other. The
number of structures is 178, next highest 151, next 121. page 10
You are correct in the interpretation of the Executive Summary. After the 1997 flood, Council directed
staff to concentrate flood mitigation efforts in the Old Town and Canal Importation basins, particulary the
areas hardest hit in the storm. Currently the first projects scheduled in the Canal Importation basin are
those which will provide protection for the Avery Park neighborhood just east of the New Mercer Canal.
This area was severely damaged in 1997. Full protection for this neighborhood is dependent on additional
work in the upper portion of the Clearview Channel and the Plum Corridor improvements as well.
As projects are completed, and as new master plans are adopted, staff wil re-prioritize citywide drainage
projects. This is typically done during the budget cycle and priorities are based on level of risk,
development pressures, legal issues, location of the project in the basin, cost effectiveness,etc. The
Mulberry Corridor projects will be included and the factors you've listed above taken into account.
-The floodplain designation seems to end at Shields Street, although the
map indicates a wide flume (I think this is the right term)at Shields,
therefore many more structures would be damaged east of Shields. Does
the floodplain designation, indeed, end at Shields Street? No. The detailed mapping associated with the
Canal Importation Basin ends at Shields St. The Old Town basin master plan maps the floodplain along
Mountain east of Shields. This floodplain has not yet been revised for the higher rainfall but is scheduled
to be done.
Maybe the only thing we can influence is the priority of the work in our
neighborhood.Why the detention pond in the golf course and dredging of
Sheldon Lake would not happen in the first leg of this work is hard to
imagine. It seems that constructing detention ponds has been identified
as the first level of defense by the city.Why not in this case? Homes
and businesses would not be inconvenienced and the city gets the
"biggest bang for the buck". What other factors could have over-ridden
the above? Detention ponds do help significantly, but in the case of the Avery Park neighborhood we
need to do both ponds and some major channel reconstruction. The top priority projects in this basin are
the three detention ponds in the Canal Importation Corridor, which allow the flows along the Clearview
Susan Hayes-Re: Mountain/Oak Flood lain Designation P
Channel to be redirected to the south along the New Mercer alignment. My response above outlines why
this area is the top priority.
I welcome your comments and hope that my ideas will be conveyed to the
proper decision makers.Thanks for your consideration. Thank you for your comments. They will be
passed along and considered as we continue prioritizing drainage projects. If you have any additional
questions please contact us.
Beth Mitchell
work phone:491-6172
home phone:493-0687
CC: "kjerry7@gwest.net"@FCI.GWIA; Bob Smith; Jim Hib...
Susan Hayes- Re: Mountain/Oak Flood lain Designation Page 1
From: Bob Smith
To: "bmitchel@engr.colostate.edu"@FCI.GWIA
Date: Mon, Jul 2,2001 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Mountain/Oak Floodplain Designation
Comment
Does City Staff have to meet some legally required period for such
notice?
Response
There is no legally required period for the notice. Per the following section of the existing City Code
enforcement takes place as soon as the hazard area is identified or known:
Section 10-36
Administrator's powers and duties:
(10)"Requiring that the provisions of this article be applied to any structure in an area of the city not
mapped as part of FEMA's Flood Insurance Study referred to in Section 10-19(a)and not included in any
city designated floodplain as established to section 10-19(b), but in an area known to the Director to have
experienced flooding in the past during a base flood or to have the potential for flooding during a base
flood."
Comment
And if so,was the time period sufficient in this case?
Response
Yes
Comment
If adequate notice was given, under what conditions could the city to issue
a moratorium for enforcing the regulations?
Response
None or City Council action to amend the City Code.
If you have any additional questions please let me know.
Bob
224-6021
bsmith@fcgov.com
>>> Beth Mitchell <bmitchel@engr.colostate.edu>06129 4:26 PM>>>
Mr. Smith,
Thank you for responding. However, you did not address my questions
concerning the notice given to property owners.Would you please refer
my questions to the proper staff person?
Beth Mitchell
Bob Smith wrote:
> Ms. Mitchell,
> I would like to offer the following responses to your questions that you sent me today. If you have any
further questions or if clarification of the response is necessary please feel free to let me know.
>Thank you!
Susan Hayes-Re: Mountain/Oak Flood lain Designation Page 2
> Bob Smith
>Comment
> Does City Staff have to meet some legally required period for such
> notice?And if so,was the time period sufficient in this case? If
>adequate notice was given, under what conditions could the city to issue
>a moratorium for enforcing the regulations? In effect, property owners
>would"self-insure"during this time.
> Response
>We discovered that there were areas in the floodplain early on in the master planning process and at
that time we could have started enforcing the floodplain regulations. The decision was made to use that
information to determine the improvements that would be necessary to mitigate that floodplain. We're
obligated to regulate a flooding problem area once we know that a potential problem exists to be fair to all
the citizens in the City.We can't ignore some and regulate others. We decided to delay the enforcement
until improvements could be shown that would address the floodplain.The July 1 date was chosen as a
date in the future from mid-May when the letter went out to allow people to be noted about the floodplain
and the regulations associated with ft. Properties farther to the east of you in the Old Town basin have
been complying with the floodplain regulations since 1995.
>Comment
>Our neighborhood continues to reel with the news that shortly we will
> have this designation with all the attendant expenses to homeowners,and
>that the Canal Importation Strategic Plan will not address our situation
>for some 15 years! When by your own estimate the risk is highest here,
>as well as the number of structures and dollar value of damage,the
> logic of our low prioritization should be re-examined by your staff.
>Work on Sheldon Lake and the new detention pond could be carried out
>over the winter months, with relatively limited disruption to homes,
> businesses and traffic flow on Mulberry. It appears that most, if not
> all,the other projects described in the Master Plan are much more
> complicated by the proximity of homes,businesses and streets.
> Response
>This is a good comment and really gets at the heart of the question of"Who gets protection first?" Due
to the fact that we're dealing with limited funds and thus, can't do all of the improvements at one time,hard
decisions must be made. It's not a question of the have's and have not's, it's a question of when. The
prioritization of capital projects includes such factors as level of risk, development pressure, legal issues,
location of the project in the basin, cost effectiveness,etc. In this case, areas of the Canal Importation
and Old Town basins that were hardest hit by the flood we experienced in 1997 have a high priority on the
list. After these projects are programed we'll be revisiting the capital improvements program again and
identifying new projects. Without performing this next step I can't tell you when the projects benefltting the
Oak/Mountain corridor will be scheduled. We do visit the capital projects program and the projects to be
included in that I
program
>each year during the budget cycle.
CC: cwanner@fcgov.com; Jim Hibbard; John Fischbach; ...
Susan Hayes- Re: Floodplain Stud Pa e 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: "tpodmore@engr.colostate.edu"@FCI.GWIA
Date: Tue, Jul 10,2001 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Floodplain Study
Terry,
We pulled up the mailing list from the first open house. All Mountain Ave. properties west of the Larimer
No. 2 Canal were included and a few properties east of the ditch. The list was generated from the actual
Canal Importation basin boundary,so my guess is the latter addresses were actually to homeowners who
own second properties in the Canal Importation Basin.
We mailed out to all basin residents for the first open house, as well getting an announcement in the
paper. For the second open house we mailed direct invitations to the attendees of the first open house
and then had a separate advertisement in the Coloradoan. This last open house did include the
Mountain/Oak neighborhood because we sent out direct invitations to all property owners in the 100-year
floodplain.
Hope this answers your question. Let me know if you need more information.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>>Terry Podmore <tpodmore@engr.colostate.edu>07/09 11:47 AM >>>
Susan,
Many thanks for your help with the Floodplain Study on Friday.
With regard to the public input which was solicited for the study, I
believe that you told me that postcard notification of public meetings
were sent to homeowners and businesses in the affected areas. However,
there was some question as to whether the residents in the Oak/Mountain
area were contacted. Is it possible for you to check to see if such
contact was made to the Oak/Mountain area and when and in what form?
I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Terry Podmore
s
From: Susan Hayes
To: "vp@webaccess.neC'@FC1.GWIA
CC: Bob Smith; Jim Hibbard; Mike Smith
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Canal Importation Floodplain
Dear Mike:
Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you! I was wrapped up in getting the Council
packet out much of last week and have been responding to questions ever since! You
are also probably aware the Master Plan has been pulled from tonight's's Council
meeting. We're not sure when it will be rescheduled.
The responses to your questions are shown below. I have also attached an Excel
spreadsheet. If you can't open it, let me know and I'll send you a hard copy.
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>> "Mike & Vicki" <vo cDwebaccess.net> 07/09 7:18 AM >>>
Thanks for your reply to my letter, Susan. I have a couple of follow-up
questions:
1. Some of the language in your message is word-for-word identical to
language in an email message another resident shared with me recently,
purportedly from Bob Smith. Can you explain this? Is all communication about
this issue really being handled by one person -who? -or does a script
exist for responding to questions about this issue? We would like to know
who we are actually speaking with; furthermore, if replies to our questions
are simply based upon a script, that suggests that our concerns are not
being addressed very specifically.
The reply you receive is from the person listed in the Sender or From box. Answers are
not being provided generically or by a script. You received the same answer as Beth
Mitchell, because you asked the same question. I used Bob's answer because it was
the correct answer. Sometimes answers are provided by several people, but funneled
through the e-mail sender. This message is an example of that; I had to get budget
information from another source to ensure you got the right answer. Also, to ensure all
staff is kept up to speed, we do "cc" each other with both the original e-mail and the
response.
2. Can you tell me more precisely how the process of prioritizing flood
mitigation projects has occurred thus far, or will occur in the future:
-What entity (group or individual) has made, or will make, decisions about
the priority of the various flood mitigation projects? If it is a group, who
heads the group and who are the members?
The prioritization of projects is and will be led by our Engineering group, with input from
Master Planning, Maintenance, Development Review and Floodplain Administration. All
of these groups are under Jim Hibbard, the Water Technical and Environmental
Services Manager.
-What specific decisions have been finalized thus far?
The Utilities currently has an approved budget for 2001 that appropriates money to
spend on drainage projects. The attached spreadsheet reflects our best available
thoughts on future project priorities and schedules; however, it does not yet reflect the
most recent financing plan proposal we will be asking Council to approve. This plan will
include a fee increase and an initial $15 million bond in 2002. The current stormwater
budget submitted for 2002-2003 does not include capital projects because the $15
million to be used to fund capital projects is not in place. The projects to be funded by
the $15 million will be approved and adopted by Council at the time of the bond
ordinance in 2002. In the meantime we'll have the opportunity to revisit the project
prioritization and seek Council's input on whether or not they would like to give us
different direction.
On the spreadsheet the priority of each project is shown in parentheses next to its title.
An "x" indicates the project is already done or has funds already budgeted for it in 2001.
If you can't open this file please let me know and I will send you a hard copy.
-What documents or other communication exist which describe those
decisions?
The attached spreadsheet documents the decisions made to date, but does not include
the expected $15 million in bond money.
3. You explained that among the factors influencing prioritization are
"development pressure and legal issues." Can you be more specific about
these two factors: What are they, and how they have affected any decisions
thus far?
Development pressure is typically a new development, or another City or County project,
which is occurring in the vicinity of a master planned drainage project. This can push a
project up in priority so we can take advantage of doing a project together, or ensure we
don't lose the opportunity to build the desired project. For example: two sites in the
Canal Importation basin identified as future detention ponds were slated to go under
development. In order to secure the sites for the future, the Utilities has purchased one
site and is negotiating on the other.
Legal issues mean we have a contractual obligation to another entity to build a project in
a certain time frame; or the City may incur some kind of liability if a project isn't built.
For example, the City had an agreement with CSU to construct an outfall from the Vet
Teaching Hospital pond by a certain date. The City also has entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County to participate in the Dry Creek
improvements.
Thanks, again, Susan,for responding to my concern about this issue.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Mike Vogl
---- Original Message From: "Susan Hayes" <shaves(ZDfcgov.com>
To: <mvog1(cDwebaccess.net>
Cc: <Janonis(o)aol.com>; <BSMITHCa)fcgov.com>; <JFISCHBACH(cDfcgov.com>;
<JHIBBARD(a)fcgov.com>; <MSMITH aafcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Canal Importation Floodplain
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We know the floodplain regulations
make it more challenging for property owners to add-on or remodel. Many of
the points you have made about the regulations limiting development can also
be applied to other neighborhoods.
Ideally, we wish that all improvements to reduce the floodplain could be
done right away. Unfortunately, we're dealing with limited resources (money
and staff), and thus, can't do all of the improvements at one time. Hard
decisions must be made regarding which projects are built first, and which
must wait. The prioritization of capital projects includes such factors as
level of risk, development pressure, legal issues, location of the project
in the basin, cost effectiveness, etc.
In this case, areas of the Canal Importation and Old Town basins that were
hardest hit by the flood we experienced in 1997 have the highest priority on
the list. After these projects are programmed, we'll revisit the capital
improvements schedule and identify the next projects. Without performing
this next step we can't tell you when the projects benefitting the
Oak/Mountain corridor will be scheduled. We do visit the capital projects
program and the projects to be included in the program during each budget
cycle.
I know this isn't the ideal answer you and your neighbors would like to
have. Your involvement is greatly appreciated, though, and I encourage you
to stay involved with the process. If you have any additional questions
please let me know.
Thank you,
Susan Hayes
416-2233
>>> ,,mvogl" <mvocl(cDwebaccess.net> 06/26 2:40 PM>>>
Hi, Susan, 1 wanted to give you this feedback after hearing your
presentation at the West Mountain Avenue neighborhood meeting last week.
First, I think you did a great job of explaining the problem, and responding
to the concerns that were expressed. I've owned my property on W. Mountain
about a month, and while I don't like the fact it is in the floodplain, I am
glad to know the problem exists and that the City has plans to resolve it.
My concerns involve the length of time before mitigation will occur, and the
effect on the neighborhood in the meantime, due to the regulations that
become effective in just a few days.
According to the City's Drainage Master Plan, there are more properties at
risk in this neighborhood than in any other (178), and the potential direct
economic loss is greater than in any other drainage corridor($2.05 million
average annual). Furthermore, given the number of historic structures in
this corridor and the amount of building restoration and renovation that has
been underway in this corridor for the past several years, a strong case can
be made for making drainage improvements in this corridor much sooner than
what is presently proposed (10-to-15 years)...in economic terms alone,
protecting the Oak/Mountain neighborhood appears to offer the most value for
the City's money. Nonetheless, I understand that social and political
considerations may be just as important in setting priorities (protect
lower-income neighborhoods first) as the economic considerations. Everybody
wants their neighborhood to be the first fixed, and until and unless debt
financing can be used, someone will have to be last. I do understand that.
But I think the Oak/Mountain neighborhood may be just as threatened by the
imminent floodplain regulations as by the rain itself. Because this is a
neighborhood of mostly small, older homes, there is arguably more
restoration and renovation work underway here than in any other part of Fort
Collins. That work is clearly preserving the character and historic value of
one of the City's oldest neighborhoods, which benefits the City as well as
the residents of the neighborhood itself. But I'm afraid that such work will
largely be halted by the floodplain regulations as I understand them. These
are generally small, older homes; it is reasonable to expect that the
families who purchase them want to make improvements to modernize the
structures and systems, and perhaps add more living space. If such
improvements are either disallowed altogether, or burdened with expensive
conditions (none of which will be needed once the drainage improvements are
completed), it is quite simple to predict what will occur: the restoration
of this neighborhood will stop, the neighborhood will stagnate, property
values will decline, and the very properties the City seeks to protect from
flooding will deteriorate for a different reason.
I strongly urge City staff to find a way to approach this problem which will
not stall the preservation work that would otherwise continue in the
Oak/Mountain corridor.
Thanks very much,
Mike Vogl
1423 W. Mountain Ave.
223-8521
Susan Hayes-LLAC mins 6.8.01.doc Pa e 1
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Local Legislative Affairs Committee
June 8,2001
Minutes
Present:
Mary Brayton,Jim Butzek, Denise Freestone,Carrie Gillis, Jonathan Harshaw, Terry Hartlieb, Tom
Honn, Linda Hopkins, John Kirsch, Moselle Kleppinger, Marge Klein, David Marcy, Jeff Nuttail,Jim
Ringenberg,Andy Smith, Chip Steiner, Steve Taylor, Ralph Waldo,Jim Watt, David Wrench
Absent: N/A
Excused: David Dilley,Judy Meyer
Staff: Roxanne Fry
I. The meeting was called to order by Chair Jonathan Harshaw at 7:32 A.M.
it. Speakers: Susan Hayes and Bob Smith, City of Fort Collins
TOPIC: Stormwater Master Plan
• Hayes provided background information and explained goals of the
master plan:
➢ General flooding problems
➢ Flood damages
➢ Project alternatives
➢ Evaluation of projects
➢ Results of plan
➢ Summary of costs
• Committee members received a copy of the letter sent to those owning
property in the designated area as well as a copy of answers to "frequenfly asked
questions" regarding the plan.
An Open House concerning the plan will take place on Tuesday, June
191 at Bauder Elementary from 3:00-7:00 PM. All interested persons are invited to
attend.
• A O&A session followed the presentation.
1. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes from June 1, 2001 were approved as presented (Motion by Honn, seconded by
Kleppinger; motion carried).
I. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 AM.
Fort Collins
.,r; 225 S. Meldrum . P.O. Box Drawer D � Fort Collins, CO 80522
CHAMBER ' " Phone: (970) 482-3746 _ Fax: 482-3774
...�.
Of Comm<re mow,_,; www.fortcollinschamber.com
July 9, 2001
Mayor Ray Martinez
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mayor Martinez:
On Friday, June 8, 2001 the Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC) of the Fort Collins
Area Chamber of Commerce had the opportunity to receive a presentation from Susan Hayes
and Bob Smith from the City of Fort Collins on the proposed Canal Importation Floodplain
Regulations.
The Committee applauds the efforts of the City of Fort Collins to develop a storm water plan
that minimizes dangers of health and safety issues and limits property damage. The LLAC
has two fundamental concerns about the Canal Importation Plan. The first issue focuses on
the scientific methodology and the second relates to funding.
The rainfall standard of 3.67 inches of rain falling over a two-hour period has never been
documented in this area and we feel that this figure is too aggressive. We live in a semi-arid
climate and are engineering to an event that may or may not ever happen. An additional
concern regarding methodology is raised by Dr. D B.Simons, a Professional Engineer in civil
engineering from Colorado State University with an extensive background in hydrology. Dr.
Simons states, "it is a common.tendency to overestimate the resistance Lo.flow.in .alluvial
channels and underestimate the-resistance to flow on the.floodplain." It appears that there is
no uniform consensus in the hydrology community regarding the scientific methodology
being used.
Is the City of Fort Collins committed to (1.) provide the public funds necessary to mitigate
these floodplain areas, and (2.) proceeding as quickly as possible with the necessary
mitigation? It is important that the City play a pivotal role in helping resolve these issues.
Implementation of the Canal Importation Floodplain regulations may create costs for
individual businesses and property owners. Ultimately, the value of commercial and
residential properties throughout the impacted areas may be improved after floodplain
improvements have been completed. We ask that the City of Fort Collins closely examine the
development process for these new regulations and adopt floodplain standards that the City
can financially support and that are based on the best scientific data available.
Sincerely,
4-4
Michael Gould
President
Where Your Business Is Our Business...
City Manager's Office
City of Fort Collins
July 24, 2001
Michael Gould
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
225 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Dear Michael:
Ray Martinez, Mayor, asked me to respond to your letter of July 9, 2001, regarding the Canal
Importation Basin Floodplain Regulations. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns about the
Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan. You mentioned the Chamber has two main
issues: scientific methodology and funding. Each is addressed below.
Scientific Methodoloev
The rainfall criteria of 3.67 inches over a two-hour period is based upon a statistical analysis of
rainfall collected at several gages along the Front Range, including the Colorado State University
campus. The latter gage is considered representative of the entire city, but is also in very close
proximity to the Canal Importation Basin. From CSU gage data, there have been seven storms
since 1949 that produced at least a 10-year rainfall event. The largest two-hour total recorded at
the CSU gage was 3.78 inches. There have been four storms since 1949 which have produced
from 2.4 inches up to 2.8 inches over two hours. These storms occurred in 1951, 1961, 1965,
and 1992. These storms were between the 25-year and 50-year events. Given these values and
number of occurrences, it is not unreasonable to derive a value of 3.67 inches for the 100-year
event.
The assumptions that go into a complex hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation are always subject
to questions. This basin is particularly complex due to its high urbanization (paved streets rather
than natural channels) and the influence of the irrigation canals. Considerable thought went into
the assumptions used in basin modeling and a rigorous review was completed by city staff. The
concerns stated by Dr. Simons are valid ones but may not be particularly applicable to this basin.
While there may be a variety of opinions about which "flow resistance"values to use in a
floodplain analysis, we have used generally accepted values for flow in streets and used accepted
sources to determine values for overbank flows. Some of the things we assume provide flow
resistance in an urban setting are cars parked along a street, landscaping, and fences. Staff would
be glad to answer any questions Dr. Simons may have about the assumptions used to prepare the
master plan.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Boa 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80322-0580 • (970)221-6505 • FAX (970)224-6107
TDD(970)2Z4-6001 • www.fcgov.com
Michael Gould
July 24, 2001
Page 2 —
Funding
The cost of the Canal Importation Basin improvements is significant, and represents a large
amount of the total estimated cost of citywide drainage improvements. Council has expressed
support for providing mitigation in a timely manner,not only to provide flood protection and
reduce damage,but to also reduce regulatory requirements on properties in the floodplain. Based
on this, staff has presented to Council various alternatives to fund citywide improvements. The
current preferred alternative recommends large fee increases along with an initial S 15 million
bond issue in order to complete all citywide projects over a 25-year period. Council is expected
to consider a resolution on this funding proposal at its August 21, 2001 meeting.
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any additional technical questions about the
master plan, please contact Susan Hayes at 416-2233.
Sincerely,
Jo . Fischbach
City Manager
/khh
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager
Susan Hayes, Stormwater Maier Plan Engineer
FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES
July 26,2001
Page
EXCERPT FROM WATER BOARD MINUTES
Other Business
Jim Hibbard, Bob Smith and Marsha Hilmes-Robinson gave a briefing on the process used to
identify floodplains and adopt floodplain regulations. There is a conflict in the current code that
has put staff in a difficult position. One part of the existing code requires Council to adopt
floodplain studies and reports in order to designate a floodplain. Another part of the current
code requires staff to begin enforcing floodplain regulations as soon as an area is known to the
Director to have the potential for flooding during a base flood. Jim explained that staff was in
the process of taking the Canal Importation Master Plan to City Council, but already had begun
to enforce the floodplain regulations. Due to floodplain regulation issues raised by citizens and
Council, the item was pulled. The questions centered on regulation versus risk, whether the City
is regulating at the appropriate level associated with the level of risk.
Jim directed the Board to the handout "Canal Importation Drainage Basin Floodplain
Regulations Adoption Process." He noted that in the existing floodplain regulations, there is a
portion of the code that requires staff to enforce floodplain regulations whether they are mapped
or not, in areas of flooding or potential flooding. Based on this, he added, City staff began to
enforce existing City regulations in the Canal Importation basin. This caught the attention of
homeowners, especially those remodeling or building additions in areas where the perception of
the homeowners was that flooding was not severe. As a result, adoption of the Canal
Importation Master plan and the resolution for long range funding of stormwater capital
improvements were pulled from the Council agenda. Staff was instructed to come back to the
August 21' City Council meeting with revised floodplain regulations that balanced the risk with
regulation. This did not allow staff much time to change complex regulations. Staff decided to
review the process by which floodplain boundaries and regulations are adopted.
Jim presented the following concept of how floodplain boundaries and regulations should be
adopted:
1. Based on solid technical analysis, city staff determines floodplain boundaries.
2. City Council adopts floodplain regulations applied to flowpaths previously unregulated.
3. City Council adopts floodplain regulations applied to enlargement of previously adopted
floodplains due to policy changes (rainfall, other criteria).
4. Staff enforces floodplain regulations on floodplains and makes interpretations on
floodplain boundaries using best available technical information.
He also presented a concept of how to proceed with the current regulation of the Canal
Importation Drainage Basin.
1. Continue enforcement of current floodplain regulations until Council action.
FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES
July 26,2001
Page
2. Action for Council to consider:
a. End enforcement of existing regulations.
b. Interim enforcement of critical facility provisions
c. Interim enforcement of regulations on new development.
3. In 6 to 12 months, staff makes recommendations to City Council on permanent revisions
to floodplain regulations based on comprehensive review and public outreach.
Staff feels this approach provides relief to the citizens in the Canal Importation Drainage Basin,
continues to regulate the most critical elements, and allows time to proceed with a
comprehensive review of the non-Poudre floodplain regulations.
Jim stated that when staff went through the process of Poudre River regulations over a year ago,
they knew there would need to be some future changes to the existing non-Poudre regulations.
At that time, 2 or 3 different sets of regulations were envisioned under which similar basins
could be regulated. As we look at what are the appropriate regulations to recommend for the
Canal Importation Basin, we will probably consider extending those same regulations to the Old
Town Basin and possibly the West Vine Basin as well. These three basins represent highly
urbanized basins where the historic flowpaths have been mostly obliterated. There might be
another set of regulations representing semi-urbanized type of basins where the historic
flowpaths are more functional.
Unfortunately all of this has happened in the last 10 days and no ordinances have been prepared
yet. Staff just completed consolidating the above conceptual approaches and needs to take it
back to Council prior to the next Water Board meeting. Staff would like discussion from the
board about these issues but does not have ordinances prepared on which a detailed Water Board
recommendation could be based.
Water Board asked under current regulations, would lenders require flood insurance for
properties in non-FEMA floodplains like the Canal Importation Basin? Staff reported there has
been feedback from residents claiming they checked with lenders, and that lenders would require
floodplain insurance. Staff has not researched this. Jim Hibbard stated that the proposed
approach gives staff time to do a thorough investigation of any potential changes for Council to
consider. It still keeps the master plan approval process and funding plan resolution going while
showing Council and their constituents that staff is being responsive to their concerns. Jim
indicated this proposed approach would remove the regulations on remodels and additions in the
Canal Importation Basin, which was one of the big issues for residents. Staff found that in spite
of open houses and direct mailings, many residents were caught in various stages of planning,
design, or financing their remodels or additions.
Jim stated the proposed process change for adopting regulations on new or enlarged floodplains
would help avoid similar issues in the future, as staff expects new mapping to be completed soon
FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES
July 26,2001
Page
in the Spring Creek Basin. The Water Board suggested staff work closely with the City Attorney
on these and any other changes to the floodplain regulations. Jim indicated that the City
Attorney's office has already been deeply involved. Jim Hibbard summarized both the change in
the floodplain regulation adoption process and the specific interim changes for the Canal
Importation Drainage Basin. Mike Smith noted that the goal is to revisit regulations and make
them the best they can be. Marsha Hilmes-Robinson reminded Board that the proposed rollback
of the existing regulations to the proposed interim regulations was for Canal Importation Basin
only.
Motion
Bill Fischer made a motion to support staffs approach to try to solve the problem and get into a
long-term solution without prejudicing people in the short term. Paul Clopper seconded the
motion.
Discussion
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson noted that many of these same issues have come up in other basins,
such as the Old Town Basin. The issues in the Canal Importation Basin are not new,just new to
this basin. Paul Clopper offered to convene an Engineering. Committee meeting on the
floodplain regulation issues if staff feels it would be helpful.
Vote
Approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
i
EXHIBIT D
CITY BOARDS
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the
Adoption of the Canal Importation Basin
Master Drainageway Plan.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Susan Duba Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer gave the staff presentation. She
stated that she was in charge of the master drainageway planning for the Utilities
Department. Ms. Hayes gave a presentation stating that the basin was in the west
central portion of Fort Collins, directly west of CSU, bounded to the north by Mulberry,
to the south Drake Road, east Shields Street and to the west the Foothills.
Ms. Hayes gave background information stating that there was a Master Plan done in
1980 for this basin. Quite a bit has been built including the Canal Importation in
Fairbrooke facilities. She stated that since the flood damage in July of 1997, the city
has revised its fee structure, so we can collect more fees and spend them citywide
instead of basin by basin. The fees are also set so facilities can be built faster.
Ms. Hayes stated that they looked at four basic alternatives. She prefaced that the
basin was so highly urbanized they ended up with very urban solutions. What the
Board would see tonight would not be typical for Spring Creek, for Fossil Creek or
Cooper Sough Boxelder. When you have your channel as a paved street, you don't
have as many opportunities as you might in an open channel. Here the Board would
see more concrete, more pipe than you would in another basin.
The four alternatives:
• Do nothing —We could continue to let damages occur, this was considered
unacceptable, it also poses not only flood damage problem, but also safety and
health issues.
• Flood Proofing — If we were only concerned about reducing flood damages, you
could just go in and flood proof every structure in the floodplain. What this doesn't
do is provide emergency access during a storm, it doesn't stop street overtopping,
and it doesn't prevent people from driving into intersections and suffering damage,
or potentially loss of life. In some areas the flood plain is so deep, it is impractical to
flood proof some buildings, especially commercial buildings, where it would really
affect ingress and egress to the building.
I
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 3
• Maximizing regional detention and just get limited regional detention —The first one
means that we would take every significant undeveloped land in the basin and put a
detention pond on it, so to slow the water down. The limited regional detention is to
just take advantage of the land we already own and the ponds we already have, and
making them as big as we possibly could. The differences between the two are
what connects them. If you have more ponds, you can get away with smaller pipes
or channels in between them. If you have fewer ponds, you need to build bigger
pipes or channels that connect them.
Ms. Hayes stated that they did solicit input from a technical team that represented a lot
of city departments. They also have had two public open houses to solicit input from
the public. They have also talked with the ditch companies.
To evaluate projects, they have some basic criteria:
• They want to protect lives and reduce property damage
• They want to control ditch overflows
• Maintain and enhance riparian habitat
• Include other city goals and policies
• Cost effective — Benefits outweighing the costs in the drainage master plans
Ms. Hayes stated that CSU is very interested in what the city is proposing, because it
does ultimately reduce damages on their property. Staff has also worked with them as
they are preparing their master plan.
Ms. Hayes talked about figures 4 and 5 in the Executive Summary. They represent the
proposed improvements. In general the bright pink represents a pipe or culvert. The
blue represents something that is on the surface such as a detention pond or an open
channel.
• Mulberry Corridor—The corridor will be getting more detention along the basin and
connecting it with a big pipe. A new pond is proposed on the City Park 9 Golf
Course. It will be connected to Sheldon Lake with a pipe. There will also be some
local storm sewers to get the flow up to Sheldon Lake and also some bank
improvements to prevent ditch overflow.
• Plum Channel — It is a combination of two big ponds, the Glenmoor Pond and the
West Orchard Pond connected with pipe or open channel. They are already in the
process of negotiating the purchase of the Glenmoor property.
• New Mercer Canal —They are doing something that might not be considered an
engineering practice. They are capturing the water and turning it 90 degrees. We
don't have an open channel or any way for the water, once it gets past the ditch, to
head down Elizabeth. So as in the 1980 Master Plan, staff is proposing to pipe the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes `l
October 19, 2000
Page 4
irrigation flows along the New Mercer and take the remaining right-of-way and make
a channel as big as they possibly can to carry the storm flows. This will involve
tearing up the right-of-way, fence line to fence line. From Elizabeth Street south to
the canal importation channel will involve taking out the trees along the New Mercer.
Staff has talked to the Natural Resources Staff and have inventoried what is out
there. Most of the trees along the fence line are non-native, so they are comfortable
with taking them out. Native vegetation will be planted; however, it will look very
structural. The benefit is it allows us to not to have to touch the Larimer Il. The
original 1980 Master Plan actually shows tearing up the ditches from Mulberry all the
way down to canal importation channel, both ditches. She expects this will be the
most controversial portion of the plan in terms of neighborhood impact. They are
working with the neighborhood to make sure they are fully aware of what they are
proposing.
• Canal Importation Channel —They already have two ponds, the Red Fox Meadows
Natural Area and the Fairbrooke Pond. Both ponds need to be made bigger, as well
as the King Property, which was recently purchased by Stormwater Utility and
Natural Resources. Detention will be added in that area. This will be a wonderful
opportunity to add more wetlands to this area. Further to the west a pond will be
built at Overland Trail and Prospect at the old substation. They are proposing a pipe
outfall down Prospect and it will discharge into the Pleasant Valley and Lake.Canal.
Because of limited right-of-way, they will be piping the irrigation flows and making
the surface channel as large as it can to carry the storm flows.
• Southern Portion of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal — In order to prevent an
overflow again, a parallel ditch is being built next to the irrigation canal, which will
intercept all the flow that comes from the west and carry it down to Spring Creek.
Ms. Hayes stated that the essence of the improvements are highly structural and very
expensive as a result. The results of the plan are positive. We will be able to provide
100-year protection for the majority of the properties in the basin. There will be a
reduction in the number of structures damaged from 700 to 64, and we can reduce flood
damages in just a 100-year event from almost $26,000,000 to $2,400,000. When you
analyze that over 50 years, it is a reduction from $123,000,000 to the do nothing, to
$14,000,000.
Ms. Hayes stated that there is a cost estimate of over$49,000,000 to implement this
plan. The cost of previously planned improvements, which means that a portion of the
1980 Master Plan was built out, but there are things left to do, is $22,300,000. There is
a $27,000,000 increase. Over half the increase is for additional projects that were
never in the original Master Plan. The other half is for building bigger ponds, bigger
channel along the New Mercer and to build the ponds bigger along the Canal
Importation Channel.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 5
Ms. Hayes reported that staff does not yet know what the impact will be on the
Stromwater Fees. They will either have to go up if we want to keep the construction
schedule compact or if it is not acceptable to raise fees, the construction schedule will
have to be extended. These projects will compete citywide with all the projects that
have to occur in the city.
Ms. Hayes stated that there is also the issue of Floodplain Regulations. We previously
did not have a floodplain designated in the Canal Importation Basin with the 1980 plan.
With this plan, staff has mapped a floodplain and it will be adopted with the Master Plan
and all properties in the floodplain will be subject to the current floodplain regulations.
This will be administered as a no rise floodplain.
Ms. Hayes reviewed the public outreach. She has visited the Golf Board, Parks and
Recreation Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Water Board and its
Engineering Committee. She has had a couple of public open houses and she is
setting up some neighborhood meetings. Ms. Hayes stated that this has been a very
complex, convoluted Master Plan. Because of its complexity, staff has tried to touch
base with the affected property owners so that they buy into it and staff understands the
limitations of what they want to build. The last thing staff wants is to adopt a plan that is
under funded and has not adequately addressed the constructability or go to a site that
we can't get property or permission to build something that they would like to.
Member Craig asked about phasing of the project.
Ms. Hayes stated that the first priority is to get additional detention in the Canal
Importation ponds, which would allow them to implement and build the New Mercer
improvements. They can't even begin to divert water into the system without being able
to slow down the water from the west. That design should begin next year. The New
Mercer would follow and then improvements along the Plum Channel. The Mulberry
Channel would be phased and is one of the last priorities in the basin right now. There
really is no set schedule, it will be based on the level of fees and if there is enough
money and once there are more master plans on board, the priorities may change
again.
Member Craig asked if the places that flooded during the 1997 flood are covered.
Ms. Hayes responded that construction did not stop because of the Master Plan. There
are two projects that are continuing on in the basin. One is the Fairbrooke Heights
pond, which is along the Canal Importation Faribrooke Channel. The pond was resized
and reconstructed. There is also the rodeo detention pond next to Hughes Stadium,
which is also being constructed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 6
Member Craig asked about concerns of other Boards.
Ms. Hayes replied that concerns were impact on fees and the significant cost increase.
Natural Resources was concerned with the irrigation canals. In talking to them they feel
comfortable with the fact that New Mercer is being torn up, and they are particularly
pleased that the Larimer II will not be impacted. Issues are still being worked out to
make the New Mercer as compatible as possible with north south movement of wildlife.
That may not be known until final design. On the Pleasant Valley and Lake system,
there is plenty of right-of-way, additional wetlands in the area have been discussed, and
being able to plant more trees than there are currently. The detention ponds have been
discussed and they are open to the changes to the Red Fox Meadows area.
Member Meyer asked if Stormwater intends to put citizens into a floodplain, have they
contacted them and let them know what that means.
Ms. Hayes responded that they have all been contacted through the Master Planning
process. She would have to say that they have not sent a specific letter telling them
that they will now be in a floodplain and this is the result. She acknowledged that it
would be a good idea, after the plan is adopted, to send a letter to the 700 people. The
property owners will get onto their mailing list that each year notifies all properties in the
floodplain that they are in a floodplain and what that means.
Member Meyer felt they should be notified before they do it to them. As she
understands it, the city is affecting the value of their property with the new floodplain
regulations and no one has been told. She has a real concern about that.
Ms. Hayes stated that they have been invited to open houses. Specific invitations were
sent to everyone in a floodplain to say come to the open house.
Member Meyer stated that prior to the new floodplain regulations it really was not an
issue, now it is an issue.
Ms. Hayes responded that the new floodplain regulations for the Poudre River would not
apply here. Those were only for the Poudre River; the standard floodplain regulations
apply here.
Member Gavaldon felt Member Meyer was bringing up a good point and asked if there
were any records of comments made at the open houses they could review.
Ms. Hayes replied she could provide the Board with that information.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 7
Member Gavaldon asked if CSU was helping defer any costs for benefit of their
improvements.
Ms. Hayes replied not at this point. They have limited funds and they are spending
most of it on campus. Staff has talked to them and they don't object to going off
campus if there is something that would benefit the campus. She pointed out that the
improvements not only benefit CSU, but also all the other properties.
Member Gavaldon asked about fees and what would the increase in the monthly fee be.
Ms. Hayes replied that the increase has not been calculated because they do not know
if there will be an increase. The choice may be to extend the schedule and keep the
fees the same. Staff has asked their finance staff to look at the effects of keeping the
current construction schedule that was adopted in 1998, how would the fees have to
change in order to implement the plan.
Member Gavaldon felt the cart might be before the horse. Staff wanted a
recommendation to Council, but he felt the communication process to the people has
been looked at, the fee structure of what the cause and effect is of such a program. It
was also not determined what the stormwater fees would be for new construction.
Member Gavaldon felt this was all information that this Board needed to make a
recommendation to Council.
Ms. Hayes responded that she could provide the pubic comment for review, but in terms
of the fees, as part of the Master Plan adoption, we are not necessarily adopting a new
fee structure. Fees will be adjusted on a budget cycle. What staff is asking for is a
recommendation on the technical plan rather than the funding components of the plan.
Council will adopt the funding options.
Member Gavaldon felt that the Board was giving a recommendation on something that
would have a big impact. He suggested deferring a recommendation on this matter until
some of these questions are answered.
PUBLIC INPUT
Nathaniel Paulbarkeet, citizen, asked what the impacts on the environment would be
during construction.
Ms. Hayes replied that during construction, the fish are relocated downstream from the
construction location. Once construction is complete and the water is returned to base
flow conditions, the fish have a chance to migrate back upstream, or there is an
opportunity to restock.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 8
Mr. Paulbarkeet asked about impacts on foxes and other wildlife.
Ms. Hayes stated that she would not consider herself an expert on animal movement.
In terms of actual creatures that are in the water, we have the ability to move them
during construction. For other animals, she does not know of a difficulty that they have
had during construction. Her guess would be that they find alternate means through the
site through surface streets. She did not know that absolutely for a fact.
Member Torgerson asked for the percentage of developable land in this basin.
Ms. Hayes replied that a good estimate would be that it is 90% developed. Most of the
open space that is left is city owned.
Member Torgerson asked about funding and how did the monthly fees and new
development fees break down for new projects.
Ms. Hayes replied she did not have a percentage, but the monthly fees are far greater
than the new development fees. Particularly in this basin, new development fees will �^
practically be none. New development fees are not used citywide; they are only used in
their basin. It is only the monthly fee that is used citywide.
Member Carpenter asked if the ditch companies are liable for any of this.
Ms. Hayes replied that their only liability is in carrying the irrigation flows. If the ditches
are not overtopping for the purposes of carrying their decreed flow, they are not liable
for carrying storm flows or overtopping during a storm.
Member Gavaldon asked about the West Vine Basin and would that basin and this one
have any effect on each other in terms of relationships.
Ms. Hayes replied that physically they are separated, the only connection between them
is the irrigation canals. Financially, that basin is different because it is in the County.
The County has adopted a stormwater utility fee, and that will be combined with a city
portion for the city residents will be combined to pay for those improvements.
Member Craig asked about the cost benefit formula and the use of a 50-year project life.
She asked where they came up with 50 years.
Ms. Hayes replied that is an engineering standard, that assuming that after 50 years,
major maintenance or repair will be needed on a structure. The assumption is the life of
the project is 50 years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 9
Chairperson Colton would like to see more information on how we arrived at the cost
benefit, and what the assumptions were. He asked for more assumptions with different
cost analysis and benefits.
Ms. Hayes replied that the city strives to give 100-year protection and typically we will
back off and provide a lower level if we can't get a benefit cost ratio greater than one. In
this particular instance, based on the feedback they have and the decision-makers
involved, they have proceeded with the 100-year protection.
Ms. Hayes stated that in this basin, the benefits are the reduction in damages to
structures during flooding. For each event they have analyzed, in this case it was the 2-
year, 10-year and 100-year, we know approximately how deep the water is, how much it
is standing on a structure. There are standardized curves that will calculate based on
the value of a home, how much damage it would suffer with one, two or three feet of
water on it. They then multiply that by the probability of the event occurring and then
they are added all up. The benefits are just damage reduction only.
Chairperson Colton stated that before he could make a strong recommendation, he
would like to see some other alternatives and also the funding mechanism.
Member Torgerson commented that his concern was that adopting this plan will raise
fees, in all likelihood, but we are also putting people in a regulatory floodplain and he
was concerned that those residents are not aware of what is happening to them.
Member Torgerson asked if flood insurance would be required for these residents.
Ms. Hayes replied that it is not required by the city. It is not a FEMA regulated
floodplain.
Member Torgerson asked if more water is being diverted to Spring Creek that currently
runs there.
Ms. Hayes replied that the area south of Prospect already drains into Spring Creek.
The area that might be imported is the Clearview Channel area that will come to the
New Mercer Canal and will be diverted south of Prospect. She stated that they would
ensure that there would be no impact on Spring Creek.
Member Gavaldon commented that he felt that the Board was missing some key
components of information and some notification and some financial information before
a recommendation can be given. He suggested a continuance to get the information.
He felt they needed the financials and the notification of the 700 owners and their
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 10
impacts. Member Gavaldon asked for the financial impacts, in terms of what the
increase would be for the monthly bill.
Chairperson Colton added that he would also like to see other alternatives that were
considered and what the pay costs and paybacks were of the other alternatives. Also
the discounted cash flow analysis of the different alternatives.
Ms. Hayes asked if he was asking for less expensive alternatives.
Chairperson Colton replied yes.
Member Gavaldon moved to continue the recommendation until the December 7,
2000 hearing. The Board asked that additional information be brought,
specifically the financial analysis noted by himself and Chairperson Colton.
Copies of the Open House comments and the notification to the property owners
about being designated in a floodplain.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson asked that a notification process be included in the motion to
notify the city as a whole as community outreach.
Member Gavaldon and Meyer accepted the amendment.
Member Gavaldon asked that information be included on CSU and what their
contribution would be to this so we have an understanding.
Member Carpenter commented that she was concerned about the Board looking so
heavily into the financial areas. She felt the Board should be looking at this from a land
use planning aspect. She did not feel it was in their purview, it was Councils.
Member Bernth agreed with Member Carpenter about the financials being out of the
Board's scope.
The motion to continue was approved 4-3 with Members Bernth, Torgerson and
Carpenter voting in the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes (excerpt)
October 26, 2000
Page 6
orge Reed said it wouldn't surprise him if the local newspapers continue with alarmist type
arts s on this subject, e.g.water quality and water rationing. "Certainly from our standpo we
want t rk with the City in every way we can," Gene responded. The District runs i
operation oblems during the winter months trying to match inflows and outflo . "What we
find with that ion of canal from the Big Thompson to the inlet, if we don't ep100 cfs in it
in cold weather, it fr up on us. The City is going to be in situation here it probably isn't
going to be producing tho 'nds of flows."Ben said the City will to keep a steady flow on
our demands(implied) from etooth. "It will not be at 100 ; it will be closer to 50 or less
cfs. We are going to have to deal ' the potential impact freezing. The choice is going to
have to be between the Northern Dist and the Bure hether they incur frost damage to the
canal or whether they submerge the dam a in. We n't do anything more than what we are
doing to keep the City supplied," he stressed. will probably switch from a supply on the
Poudre to maximize our use through Horse th i rder to keep the flow in the canals as high as
we can to help the District with its free ' g problems. a will do everything we can to monitor
the temperature at Flatiron and on ' end so we can anti ' ate freezing conditions. The District
may have to adjust its flow rat the weather forecast is for a eme cold, or switch to a warmer
source such as Carter,"Be plained. Gene said these are all thi the District is looking at. "I
understand there is abo a 1500 ac-ft pool that we can operate with the City's releases,"
Gene pointed out." may be that the District will operate and the City wi ull what they need,
and then we go and on with the 100 cfs to take that pool where it's operat al for you, and
help allevia some of the freezing," Gene related. City staff has been in a tough ition because
there ar of many alternatives for them, he acknowledged, and the district doesn't h e a lot of
alte . tives either. He emphasized that the District will try to go out of its way to minims as
any of the negative effects that it can.
CANAL IMPORTATION MASTER DRAINAGEWAY PLAN
Background
According to the memorandum included in Board packets, staff has been working for over a year
to revise and update the Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway plan. This highly
urbanized basin, located in the west central part of Fort Collins, is subject to widespread
flooding. The original plan was created in 1980, and some of the improvements identified then,
have been constructed.
1997 Flood
The July 1997 storm caused severe flash flooding and significant property damage in this basin.
Since the flood, the City revised the stormwater fee structure and increased the design rainfall.
Tom Sanders said that Susan Hayes presented this to the Engineering Committee last week. He
asked her to provide a summary of that for the Board. The Board received executive summaries
in their packets.
Susan Hayes, the project manager for the Canal Importation Basin update, introduced Greg
Koch, a consultant with Anderson Consulting Engineering.
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26, 2000
Page 7
Location of Basin
Susan began her presentation by pointing out the location of the Canal Importation Basin. It is
located in the west central part of town,generally bounded by Mulberry on the north,Drake on
the south, the foothills on the west and Shields on the east. She indicated the major flow paths
that have been defined. She reiterated that it's a highly urbanized basin, so typically as you drive
through,you are not going to see major drainage channels. There is the Mulberry flow path,
Plum Channel, Clearview Channel, Canal Importation/Fairbrooke Channel, (a portion of it has
already been constructed), and a very urban basin to the south that drains directly to Spring
Creek, which is called the Manchester/Scarborough flow path.
Master Plan Update
The revised Master Plan will:
• Revise the system for higher rainfall
• Improve riparian habitat along dminageways
• Include a more detailed study of local dminageways
• Revise cost estimates to construct proposed projects
General Flooding Problems
In general, flooding problems can be summarized as too much water and too little space to move
it in. There are three irrigation canals that run through this basin: Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal, the New Mercer Ditch and Larimer No. 2. All of these capture stormwater runoff, which
is trying to go from west to east. The ditches are going north to south. The ditches pick up the
water and move it in a variety of ways, overtop and spill through the neighborhoods and down
into streams.
Another element very typical of this basin, is that the vast majority of it was developed prior to
drainage criteria being in place in the early 1980s. As a result, there is development encroaching
in the floodplains and there are streets built over low points, which cause streets and intersections
to flood. There are also undersized detention ponds, which are now overflowing and
exacerbating flooding problems. Most of this was painfully obvious in the 1997 flood.
Susan then showed a picture of the floodplain. As the water comes down the Mulberry Corridor,
it is picked up by Larimer No. 2 and literally pushed to the north and overflows onto Mountain
and Oak. In the Plum Channel Corridor,water is spilling from the PV&L on the west. In
addition, local flows contribute to flooding on Elizabeth. In the Clearview Channel,there is a big
spill on the PV&L that comes down the channel, combines with local flows. It then hits the New
Mercer Canal, spreads out and overtops,goes over Larimer No. 2 and eventually down to
Elizabeth to the CSU Campus. "We know the floodplain continues on to CSU,but we haven't
mapped it," she explained. The detailed mapping stopped at Shields.
In the southern part of the basin, the Canal Importation Channel, because so much of it had
already been constructed with the original 1980 master plan, has very few structures in this
corridor that are flooded. However, detention ponds are being inundated, and there is a local
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26, 2000
Page 8
problem upstream of the PV&L Canal. At Manchester and Scarborough, major street flooding is
caused by spillage on the PV&L, Canal and local runoff.
Flood Damages
She went on to say that there are over 700 structures in the floodplain. In just a 100-year event,
there would be over$25 million in property damage. Average annual damages were calculated
using standardized methods to calculate property damage, and a 50-year project life at a 5%
interest rate. If you took those average annual damages and brought them back to a present worth
value, you have almost$123 million worth of damage in today's dollars. That means if we did
nothing over the next 50 years, the damage value in 2000 dollars would be$123 million. So we
have significant damage in the basin. Again, going by the 1997 flood, which is far greater than a
100-year, there was major damage in the basin and at CSU.
Given the fact that we have such high damages,we strive to reach a 100-year level of protection
in a cost effective manner, but also meeting other City goals and objectives for water quality,
open corridors, etc. We start at the 100-year level. If we can't meet that,we evaluate other
alternatives, which provide less protection.
Project Alternatives:
1. Do nothing. We know what the results of that would be.
2. Flood proof only. We eliminated this as a stand alone alternative because some of the
flood depths were so deep that it was impractical to flood proof all homes or businesses.
3. Maximize regional detention. This means we could take nearly every undeveloped piece
of land in the basin and build a detention pond on it, and connect it with pipes and
channels.
4. Limit detention to land the City already owns, such as the Canal Importation Basin.
The proposed plan proposes maximizing regional detention.
Susan went on to say that staff solicited input from other City staff. They went to the Parks&
Recreation, Golf and Natural Resources Boards. They also met with citizens at two open houses
to get feedback on the proposed alternatives.
Objectives Considered When Evaluating Projects
• Protect lives
• Limit property damage
• Control ditch overflows
• Eliminate as many uncontrolled spills as possible
• Maintain and enhance riparian habitat for water quality purposes
• Incorporate other City policies and goals
• Work with CSU to reduce campus damage along with their own efforts
• Strive to be cost effective
Next she referred to Figures 4 and 5 in the Executive Summary. Since Canal Importation is such
an urban basin, these are very urban solutions. This would not be typical of a more natural
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26, 2000
Page 9
system, such as Fossil Creek, Spring Creek, Cooper Slough and Boxelder. You will be seeing a
number of detention ponds, pipes and straighter channels than we would typically design. She
stressed that there are limited opportunities for improvements in this basin.
In the Mulberry Corridor, staff added more detention, and built channels and pipes to connect
them. Along the Mulberry Corridor, Sheldon Lake and City Park Nine Golf Course are for
detention. To control ditch overflows, they are doing some ditch improvements and radial gates
to force the water into these ponds.
With Plum Channel, there are ponds and pipes and open channels to connect them to reduce
flows downstream on Elizabeth and on campus.
The City had already done some work on the Clearview Channel, but as they looked at
improvements, they found there were some physical limitations that already exist. They have cut
back on what they are proposing on Clearview. There are a couple of large culvert upsizings.
The New Mercer Canal is probably one of the most controversial areas. The figure shows
reconfiguring essentially the whole canal, and putting the irrigation flows in a big box culvert,
and making the rest of the open channel as big as it can possibly be. This will mean there will be
vertical concrete side walls in some areas, and a grass lined bottom. Staff has been working with
the neighborhood to make sure they are well aware of this project and to address concerns they
may have. At Springfield it looks like both sides are going to have to be vertical concrete walls.
Compared to the 1980 master plan, we have been able to reduce the impact to the ditches to just
the New Mercer from Elizabeth down to the Canal Importation Channel. That has been well
received by the Natural Resources Dept. and the Natural Resources Advisory Board, particularly
since we don't have to touch Larimer No. 2.
Bill Fischer pointed out that the water that goes into Sheldon Lake typically keeps it full most of
the time anyway. Is there some freeboard in there? "We are going to dredge the lake and lower
the water surface, so we have flood storage on top," Susan replied. "How is the water removed
from that lake in times of a big storm to have a controlled flow out, to make room for the flows
that would be coming?".Bill asked. He knows there is a headgate on the southwest. "We don't
typically have enough time to do that," Susan answered. "We will have to dredge it to have a
standard operating level. It actually will be draining back into Larimer No. 2, but at a very
reduced rate so the ditch can handle it," she explained. "If it overtops, where would the water
from the lake go,"Bill continued. "The lowest point right now is at the southeast comer down
towards Mulberry," Greg Koch replied. "The northeast corner is also low. It wouldn't take much
additional water in there to go over,but that corner has been improved," he said.
"We need to upsize the ponds along the Canal Importation Channel. This will allow us to bring
the water down from the New Mercer Channel," Susan explained.
We will be adding some detention to the north Pleasant Valley &Lake Canal system. Property
was just purchased at Overland and Prospect. We will bring the outfall pipe down Prospect and
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26,2000
Page 10
discharge into and eventually dump into the PV&L Channel. Again, additional volume in the
Canal Importation Channel is needed in order to do this.
There is a parallel channel system proposed along the west side of the PV&L Cannel in order to
pick up the water coming from the west to eliminate the overflow that goes down Manchester
and Scarborough. This flow eventually goes to Spring Creek.
Results of the Plan
We have shown we can provide generally 100-year protection in the vast majority of the areas in
the basin with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.2,which is quite phenomenal for this kind of project. We
have reduced the number of structures damaged from 700 to 64, and we have reduced one time
100-year damages from approximately$26 million down to $2.4 million. Annualized damages
would be reduced from $123 million to$14 million(the present worth of the annualized
damages).
Susan explained that staff did some sensitivity analyses. She said it didn't make much difference
if you changed the number of years or the interest rate. We still have a benefit/cost ratio that is
very high. If we brought the benefit/cost ratio down to a 1, we would have to be assuming
interest rates of about 13%.
Other Results of the Plan
• Creates opportunities for additional wetlands in the ponds and channels being proposed
"We hope, eventually, to make this master plan a wetland permit that can be used by-our
capital projects group for tradeoff: When they have to eliminate wetlands in a project,they
can use these wetlands to meet permit requirements," Susan explained.
• Incorporates features into the channels that promote movement of fish and other aquatic
species.
• Reduces impact of Canals to what staff considers a minimum, and therefore,Larimer No. 2
can remain untouched
Residual F000dplains
Susan displayed a residual floodplain map. The dark blue is where the floodplain will be after all
the improvements are in place, superimposed over the old floodplains. Along the Mulberry
Corridor,they have eliminated the spills from Larimer No. 2 and most of the floodplain on
Mulberry. This leaves a mobile home park in the floodplain west of Taft Bill. Plum Channel has
been completely removed from the 100-year floodplain. She added that there is still water there;
it just means there is no damage to structures. The flows coming down into the New Mercer have
been reduced, thereby reducing the spills that occur in this area. It also reduces the flows onto
campus.
She went on to say that Elizabeth will remain in the floodplain. It's the low point of the basin.
We can't turn all the water into other directions, but the water level has been reduced to the point
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26, 2000
Page 11
that buildings could be more practically flood proofed. At Clearview Channel there are still some
structures left in the floodplain,but depths have been reduced to a point where they can be flood
proofed.
At Canal Importation we essentially have a residual floodplain remaining along the channel. All
structures are pretty much eliminated from the floodplain. In the Manchester/Scarborough area
there is still a residual floodplain in the area of Drake and Taft. Again there are some remaining
structures,but it wasn't cost effective to try to pipe these flows down to Spring Creek. It didn't
offset the damages we would be reducing.
Summary of Costs
The cost of the plan is estimated to be$49.3 million. That is substantial due to the highly urban
nature of the basin. This is most likely our most expensive basin master plan. In 1998, when the
Water Board considered the fees, there was information presented about how much money we
had scheduled to spend in this basin. At that time it was$22.3 million, which was based on the
projects that had been identified up to that point. Two things have changed since then: the
rainfall has been updated and more projects have been added to the basin based on the revised
master plan and floodplain. Of the$27 million increase, about half it is additional projects, such
as the Mulberry Corridor, or additional projects along Plum. The other half of it is largely due to
higher rainfall. That meant going back and re-designing or rebuilding projects that had already
been proposed,that now need to be bigger.
How Fees Will be Impacted
The options are to either raise the fees or extend the construction time frame.
Floodplain Regulations
• Properties in the adopted floodplain will be subject to current floodplain regulations. This
will be a"no-rise" floodplain.
• When the Old Town and West Vine Master Plans are complete, floodplain regulations for
these three"urban floodplains"will be reviewed and revised.
This floodplain will be adopted with the master plan. All 700 properties will be subject to our
current floodplain regulations. Staff'is in the process of notifying those property owners to
inform them of the new regulations. "We have already been telling them, as properties come in
under land transactions, that they are in a flood prone area and that they will be subject to these
regulations," she explained. She reiterated that it will be a"no rise" floodplain. All new projects
have to do a hydraulic analysis to prove that their project won't push the water up on a neighbor.
She repeated that these floodplain regulations will be revised when Old Town and West Vine
master plans are updated.
Questions from the Board
Tom Sanders asked if staff is going to Council with this. "Yes," Susan replied.Right now we
are making the round of boards and commissions, and staff plans to go to Council January 23,
2001 for a work session. She is hoping to get feedback from various boards that are impacted by
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes `
October 26,2000
Page 12
the plan, to see if it will be necessary to do more work prior to going to Council. Tom also asked
if staff wants any action from the Board today. "Not today," Susan said. She would like to get
feedback to see if there is additional work staff needs to do or if the Board feels comfortable
making a recommendation at the meeting on December P to pass on to Council in January.
However, if the Board thinks we need to be looking at other alternatives, staff would like to work
on that prior to the next meeting and bring it back to the Board for consideration.
Bill Fischer asked if you would be pushing more water on the Canal Importation Channel. "No,"
Susan replied. "In fact in the Canal Importation Channel, with the proposed projects, we will be
ending up with larger flows than exist in the current system, but we won't be impacting any
structures. That is a key requirement. We can't transfer a problem from one part of the basin to
another."
Joe Bergquist asked if staff was going to have people vote on the fees in each basin or are they
going to be shared among all the basins?"We'll probably look at that in the normal budget
process," Jim Hibbard replied. "When we begin our next 2-year budget cycle, we will look at
fees, construction schedules, etc. as part of the budget process. Of course, Water Board and City
Council will be participating in that as well. Right now, essentially,we are going to continue to
build priority projects throughout the City with the money we have available. When we complete
more of the master plans, we will have more information to look at. Do we continue to increase
fees?Do we extend the schedule for projects out longer? That will have to be determined as part
of the budget process as opposed to a master planning process. There is no way you can look at
that on a basin by basin basis. All the capital projects, and the costs associated with them,
continue to change as we update the rest of the master plans, and that dictates how much money
we will need,"Jim explained. Joe also asked if the fees that were made-city-wide, cover both
capital fees as well as operation and maintenance fees. Jim replied, yes.
Mike Smith related that the issues for Council will be the impact of raising the rainfall standard
and the update of the master plans. Costs have gone up. "We will try to get all of this done in the
time frame we talked about before; increase fees at a faster rate, or have fee schedules going up
at the same rate and stretch out the construction time. "Do you have an idea what that length of
time will be?"Robert Ward asked. "No, we don't,"Mike replied.
Canal Importation will probably be the most expensive of the basins at$49 million, Tom Sanders
said. "Since we are going to be creating wetlands and enhancing fish and other aquatic habitat, is
there any chance we could get some lottery money?" he asked. Susan didn't know. "We are
limited in what we can accept in terms of being a utility," she said. "We haven't pursued that
option. It's probably worth looking into."
Tom Sanders thanked Susan for the presentation and said the Board will make a recommendation
on this at the Board meeting in the first week of December. Susan said if the Engineering
Committee would like to meet again before then, she would be happy to do that, particularly if
they want staff to evaluate other options that would cost less but provide less protection.
Fort Collins Water Board Minutes
October 26, 2000
. Page 13
Bob Smith mentioned that the Engineering Committee suggested a field trip of the Canal
Importation Basin. Susan said she would work with Molly Nortier to come up with some dates
and times.Molly will check with Board members on their preferences and schedule a time prior
to the next Board meeting.
David Lauer asked if there could be a roughly 30%rate increase over the next five years the way
things are structured currently. "Right now our budget contemplates 6-8%per year out ten
years,"Dave Agee responded. "So that's actually more than 30%,"David said.Mike Smith
pointed out that it would double. Dave Agee said there is the potential for$50 million worth of
borrowing. "If we build just these improvements,we would have enough money to do that based
on those rate increases, but nothing else." "You're saying that the 6-8% a year rate increase
would only take care of this and nothing else?" Tom asked. "Nothing else anywhere in the City,"
Dave replied. "Council is going to have to wrestle with fees and priorities," he added. Joe asked
if the Council would want the Water Board to address the priorities. "We will have to suggest the
priorities,"Mike Smith stated.
Joe Bergquist asked if there is a total backlash to buying up property in the controversial New
Mercer Canal area, which would require concrete walls. Is the general feeling that it is too
political an issue? "The problem is, there is no defined channel downstream," Susan replied. She
guesses that you could buy up enough houses to create a channel to get the water over to
Elizabeth St., but it's physically challenging to get a flow path through there. "You could build a
smaller structure and have a larger residual floodplain and provide less protection and not buy up
structures. There are different things you can look at.Because we were able to meet a 100-year,
we didn't necessarily look at other alternatives." She reiterated that she would be willing to meet
with the Engineering Committee again if they wished to discuss alternatives. "We are moving so
much water around in the basin, once you choose not to do something, it doesn't just affect that
local area, it increases flows elsewhere." She acknowledged that once people look at the cost,
they are uncomfortable with it and ask if we can do it cheaper. Yes, we can do it cheaper. We
could reduce the level of protection, but what would be the policy? Would we do it basin-wide or
in just one area?
George Reed asked if the prioritization process for Stormwater projects has changed from the
criteria we looked at in the past,using a matrix. Susan didn't know if capital projects is using
that process now. With Canal Importation we prioritized based on how the projects had to be
built sequentially, because there is a very definite sequence you have to use there, and because
Canal Importation and Old Town have been the top priority basins. When you add in all of the
other master plans, she doesn't know how the rest of the City is going to prioritize.
"Suffice it to say, it becomes more than just a technical exercise," Jim Hibbard remarked. There
are contractual obligations, ditch companies and other entities that bring in the political aspects
of the exercise. "Development is also a driver," Susan added.
"Compared to this, what does Old Town look in terms of dollars?"David Lauer asked. Dave
Agee said the 8% he is talking about is city-wide because the fee is uniform city-wide. Certainly
Old Town will be competing with these projects just as Dry Creek and Taft Hill and all the
Fort Collins Water Board Mmutes
October 26, 2000
Page 14
projects are, in essence, competing for the same dollars. "Is this a more expensive project than
Old Town the way it is framed now?"David continued. "Yes," Susan replied,"even if you take
into account the projects we already have going in Old Town." She expects Old Town to be
significantly less.
Jim Hibbard said it's been a challenging year for master planning for capital projects, for all of
us.David Lauer asked what rate of interest they had for borrowing. "It was 6°/q"Dave Agee
said, "although the last bonds,were closer to 4%, which was an excellent rate."
Susan ended by saying that a field trip will be planned and the Water Board will make a
recommendation on this for Council in December.
Jim Hibbard announced that the Locust Street Project is underway. It uses a 108 inch reinforced
concrete pipe, along with a 10 ft. bore under Riverside and the railroad tracks.He said anyone
interested in seeing that project can contact project manager Owen Randall at the Service Center.
LIGAN RESERVOIR AGREEMENT
Dennis de said the Water Supply Committee and Utilities staff have met several timZ
recent mon to discuss various options the City has regarding the Halligan Reservoir
Agreement wi orth Poudre Irrigation Company(NPIC). Staff is now seeking concu
from the full Wat oard to extend the option period for two years.
Potential Conflict of In st
Prior to discussion of this ite Bill Fischer related that he assumed De 's Bode was going to
talk about the option the Board open to recommend extending th ption on Halligan for two
years. Perhaps intertwined in the de ' ion, is an implicit decision how to approach diligence
filing. "As you know," he said, "when r you have a condit al decree, you have six years to
prove diligence. I think Dennis is going to est that th iligence filing is due in November of
this year and the decision on the Halligan con d in or may not impact diligence filing by the
City. I represent, and my law firm represents, var s water users in the Poudre River who will
have a chance to object to that diligence filin thin s many of my clients know,that Fort
Collins hasn't made the diligence filing y , and it hasn't en in the resume. I suspect, since
none of my clients have reviewed tha at I should probabl xcuse myself from the discussion
to insure there will not be a confli f interest,"he concluded. then left the room.
Dennis went on to say that and members received a memo with bac ound information on
this item in their packe . he City of Fort Collins and NPIC entered into t Halligan Reservoir
Agreement in Nove er of 1993. The purpose of the agreement is to give the 'ty the option of
pursuing the en ement of Halligan Reservoir,which is currently owned by NP . if the City
exercises th ption, the property would be conveyed to the City and it could then pr eed with
the desi permitting and construction of the facility. The City also has the option ofte 'nating
the a cement or asking NPIC to extend the agreement for two more years. The latter optio
ld allow additional time to study the project before making a final determination whether t
Water Board Minutes (excerpt)
December 7, 2000
Page 3
uestions
Da 'd Lauer asked for clarification on the other two sinkholes. "Did I understand you corn
that y didn't have to fill those in with cement?""That's right," Gene replied. "Are you
confide that the seepage is not happening from those sinkholes?"David continued. "W en they
got in ther they could not find any area that was indicating any seepage. Once they xed in
the grout an d into the other abutment hole, there were significant declines in oring
sites down belo " he explained. "That appears to have been one of the major so of where
the seepage is. NN her there are any others that are minor, we don't know at s time; at least
nothing showed up o the surface," he added. "Do you think that all the see ge is coming from
that one source?"Davi sked. "I don't think we can say that all of it is ming from there. At
this time, when we are re bishing the dam, we need to get the major eas that are susceptible
to sediment transport becaus hat could lead to a dam failure," he tioned.
Robert Ward returned to the west ope allegations subject. a sees it, at this point, it's just an
exchange of letters. "Where will this o next?" he asked. " s in the hands of the BOR," Gene
replied. The bureau has not responded the letter at thi oint. One of the unfortunate things is
that the Bureau has a lot of people who ha retired left the system. As a result, they have
very few people, either in the local or region offs in Billings, who have any familiarity with
CBT operations. Because of the endangered sp ' s aspects in those letters, one of the main
things the western slope is questioning is bei ab to force the Bureau to comply with the
Endangered Species Act. What they want i hat th tate has fought against for years, and that
is to reserve federal rights and have by- s flows. The est slope would like to have two weeks
during the peak runoff season on the t slope, when we n't divert any water. Our opinion is
that we are entitled to the water. If a reservoirs are in a sit lion where it looks like they are
going to fill and spill, we don't e a problem with participati in providing flows. At the
same time, we have constitue s all through the Northern District ho have paid for the CBT
project, and have given the istrict the responsibility of supplying t in with supplemental
water. "It would be diffi It to tell our users that we would bypass two eeks of water for the
fish, and the River go dry and we can't get water to supply them," he s ssed.
"So the next ste s for the Bureau to respond?"Robert asked. "That's right," ne replied. The
Bureau hash a couple of meetings and will meet with people from Billings in 'd-December.
Gene ackn ledged that the decision will probably be made out of Washington. ever wins
the ele ' n could have a major impact on that decision by whom is appointed to sery
Secre of the Interior. "Some of the names mentioned by George Bush could be very 1pful,"
he id. He added if the person who is appointed has knowledge of western water, it would
neficial. There were no further questions. Gene had to leave for another meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF CANAL IMPORTATION MASTER DRAINAGEWAY PLAN
At the October meeting, Susan Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer, briefed the Board on the
Canal Importation Basin Master Plan. Each Board member received a copy of the Executive
Summary,which explains the main components of the technical plan. A field trip and follow-up
discussion occurred on November 22, 2000.
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 4
Susan said today's meeting focuses on two areas. The first is technical issues about the Canal
Importation Master Plan and a briefing on the field trip. Previous discussions indicate there
appear to be no technical disagreements about the proposed plan.
The second issue is policy. The Board has expressed concerns about the cost proposed in the
master plan and the impact on Utility fees and the construction schedule. These are policy issues
related to the appropriate level of protection to be provided, the acceptable level of fees and their
relationship to the overall utility bill; and the length of time it takes to build the projects proposed
in the master plans. These policies were established in the past and staff would like to know if
the Board wants to re-visit these issues prior to acting on the Canal Importation Master Plan.
Technical Issues and Field Trip
Susan said staff isn't necessarily asking for action from the Board today. She emphasized that the
issues that will be discussed today are not unique to the Canal Importation Basin. First she asked
for discussion on the technical issues on the master plan itself to make sure staff has answered all
the Board's questions.
She began by discussing the field trip, which was held on November 22nd. Four Board members
participated in the tour. "We visited most of the sites in the basin," she said. We talked about
various options, for example, where the water was going. At this point, there don't appear to be
any outstanding technical issues with respect to the master plan. Internally, staff is still working
on some issues with respect to the ability to construct certain projects, and that may force us to
go back and re-evaluate some of them.
John Morris thanked staff'for the excellent tour. Susan said staff will try to schedule tours for the
other plans as well. David Lauer asked about the question of constructibility. "Does that involve
one of those areas you showed us on the tour,where it was so restricted that you either had to go
all the way under or not do anything at all?" "Yes, the New Mercer improvements are probably
the most up in the air as to how constructible they are, and whether or not we are really going to
be able to provide 100-year protection there," Susan replied. There are also some areas along the
Pleasant Valley &Lake Canal where the question is whether we have sufficient rights-of-way,
and how we would impact adjacent neighbors. "There are a couple of areas where you would be
required to build a parallel channel next to the ditch.Do we have to keep those separate?" John
Moms asked. "You don't want to combine them completely because you end up with such small
irrigation flows compared to the capacity of the channel," Susan explained. "Keep in mind that
everything we have proposed here, is subject to modification and improvement at the time of the
final design. She added that staff has tried to be as conservative as possible to make sure there is
enough money to do the projects, but they are open to change upon design.
David Lauer asked about cooperation with the Ditch companies. "We've had a good working
relationship with them so far," Susan replied. "Frankly, most of what we are showing on the
PV&I, is not that much different from what was shown in the original master plan," she added.
"Alone of the ditch companies object to changing portions of the ditch as long as they are
carrying flows they would like them to carry, and that the City takes on the ultimate maintenance
and repair."Dave Rau thinks it's kind of a benefit to them. Susan said they do the routine
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 5
maintenance, but if there is a failure in a culvert, the City fixes it, not them. She also mentioned
that it keeps trash out of portions of the ditch. There are trash racks on the start of the culvert that
the City has to maintain.
Policy Issues
Before going into policy issues, Susan said staff wants to know where the Board would like to go
with this. What policies would you like to revisit?What information do you need from staff in
order to make an informed decision on changing or not changing current policy?
In her memo Susan related that the Board has expressed concerns about the cost proposed in the
master plan and the impact on the utility fees and construction schedule. These are policy issues
related to the appropriate level of protection to be provided, the acceptable level off fees and
their relationship to the overall utility bill, and the length of time it takes to build the projects
proposed in the master plans. These policies have been set in the past and staff would like to
know if the Board wants to re-visit these issues prior to acting on the Canal Importation Master
Plan.
Level of Protection
The City of Fort Collins is required by Colorado and Federal laws to regulate to the 100-year
storm event. This means the 100-year storm is used to map the regulatory floodplain and enforce
floodplain regulations. In 1999, a higher rainfall standard was adopted. This was based on sound
technical analysis and recommended by the Water Board and adopted by Council. Higher rainfall
has resulted in higher runoff and larger floodplains.
In the late 70s and early 80s, the City of Fort Collins adopted the I00-year level of protection as
the design event for all new development. This is enforced through the storm drainage design
criteria and construction standards. Many other communities use this standard, as well as the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District which encompasses most of the metro-Denver area
communities.
For basin master plans, the City has adopted the policy to provide 100 year protection only if the
benefits outweigh the costs This means it is possible to provide less than 100-year protection.
"There are parts of Old Town where ten-year protection was recommended," she pointed out. "In
West Vine, we are seriously looking at 25 or 50-year protection, rather than 100-year,' she
added. However, the regulatory floodplain is still mapped using the 100-year stone, and property
and structures remaining in the residual floodplain are subject to the floodplain regulations.
Susan said, "In terms of designing for new development, that is up to each community to decide
what level of protection they would like their community to have. So, a community could decide
to adopt a 50-year level of protection, but they still have to map a 100-year residual floodplain
and regulate to that floodplain," she reiterated.
Dave Rau asked what is meant by"regulated to 100-year protection." "In our Floodplain
. Regulations, if you have an identified 100-year floodplain, there are criteria for how you build in
that floodplain (whether you have to be elevated, flood proofed etc.)," Susan replied. "From a
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 6
practical standpoint, it means you must meet FEMA 100-year regulations as an absolute
minimum,"Dave pointed out. "Or local basins can have stricter criteria than FEMA," Susan
added. .
"If you are looking, as you have been for awhile, at West Vine to go to 50 or 25-year, comparing
that with Canal Importation, especially the more severe areas, how serious would we get with the
southern or central areas?"David Lauer asked. "How do you define severity?" Susan asked. "I'm
referring to the volume of water and potential damage based on the number of structures,"David
answered. "The highest potential damage is along the Mulberry Corridor because it floods out
the Mountain and Oak Street areas," Susan explained. "Comparing that to West Vine, is it as bad
potentially?"David continued. "It's worse. There are far more structures in Canal Importation in
the floodplain, than there are in West Vine, for example," Susan stated. She added, "That's when
you have to start backing off on level of protection because it is the number of structures that are
damaged that generate your benefits through damage reduction from building improvements that
take them out of the floodplain. If you don't have very many structures in the floodplain, frankly
it is hard to justify building a lot of protection for a few buildings versus 100s," she stressed. "Is
density graded that way too?"David asked. "Yes," Susan replied. "It bothers me that it always
appears to be property value rather than value of life,"David remarked. "It's always a ticklish
issue when you do the cost/benefit analysis,"Dave Rau pointed out. "The Code says the benefits
must outweigh the costs; it does not say you must have a benefit/cost ratio greater than one,"
Susan explained. "You can tell a very good story, for example, if you have a nursing home in the
middle of the floodplain, you will have a higher likelihood of loss of life because of that." 'We
do not ignore loss of life at all," she emphasized. "A lot of what we do revolves around' '
emergency response, ensuring that our streets aren't overtopping, so people don't get washed
away in their cars, and the ability to get emergency vehicles to critical locations during a flood,"
she explained.
Paul Clopper wanted to be clear on the calculations of benefit/cost ratio and this particular area.
"The current recommendations and guidelines place loss of life at about $2 million per life lost.
Did you assume lives lost?" "No," Susan answered. "Actually, the benefits are pretty
conservative,"Paul commented. "You said earlier that things associated with floods such as
down time due to lost business while it's closed, isn't included as part of avoided damages, so
your B/C ratio is pretty conservative, and it's still dam good," he concluded. "Even if you felt
that we were too generous with the property values and the depth of flow, we could cut them in
half and still have a B/C ratio of greater than one, in this particular basin," Susan noted."In other
basins you have to include all of those intangibles and tell a convincing story to justify the
improvements you'd like to build, but sometimes you still are at 25 or 50-year protection," she
added.
John Moms recalled at the wrap-up after the tour,Board members had discussed whether to
recommend that the Council try to fund the $49 million or if we should recommend reducing the
100-year level for this one basin because of the cost. Susan responded, "that's the kind of
feedback we would like from the Board. We meet the policy with this plan. It appears that people
have sticker shock for this particular basin. So, do you change the policy of level of protection
for one basin or city-wide?" she asked. She also asked if the Board needs other information from
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 7
staff to help make the decisions. Is it physically possible to build the projects in this timeframe?
New master plan projects have not yet been included in this projection.
Stormwater Utility Fees and Construction Schedule
Prior to 1998,the City collected stormwater fees on a basin by basin basis.Each basin master
plan was adopted as a system and the fees collected in the basin were used to fund the proposed
projects. Capital fees were limited to$3.58 per month for a typical residential lot.Financing was
on a"pay as you go"basis with some debt financing. This resulted in long build-out schedules
due to the limited funds collected.Basins such as Canal Importation and Old Town,with high
costs of improvements, had the longest build-out schedules.
Susan said now that we have gone to city-wide fees, the questions about the impacts on the fees
become harder to answer.
In 1998,the Water Board recommended, and Council adopted, citywide stormwater fees. The
projected fees were based on the estimated costs to complete the outstanding projects shown in
the original master plans(excluding the Poudre River and Cooper SloughBoxelder). These costs
did not include the impacts of raising the design rainfall. The fees were based on constructing
projects worth $68 million over 15 years. The highest priority projects were in the Old Town and
Canal Importation basins. Susan said the question becomes, if we are no longer going to do$68
million worth of improvements, what will it be? Is it going to be $100 or$120 million? And,
how long will that take and what will the fees be?Again she asked what information would the
Board like from staff on this issue. She said that Dave Agee will share some information today to
help guide the Board's decision.
Enterprise Fund Restrictions
Susan mentioned that after the field trip, Board members mentioned other sources of funding.
For example, can we go to the General Fund or can we get money from GOCO? She said there
are limited opportunities to get money from the General Fund. The reason the Utilities was set up
as an Enterprise Fund in the early 1980s, was because the General Fund did not have money to
fund storm drainage improvements. It was specifically set up to have a dedicated funding stream.
Dave Rau thought it was because of the TABOR Amendment. "The Utility was originally set up
to have a dedicated source of funding. The Enterprise Fund was set up to address TABOR
restrictions," Susan explained. She added, "That limits us as to how much outside funding we
can accept; 10%total revenue." She mentioned that the Colorado Water Conservation Board has
a low interest loan program, and the City has taken advantage of that as well as the County.
There are other sources, but it wouldn't be likely that we would get $49 million. "I don't see why
we can't go after 10%of it,"David Lauer suggested. "We must remember that these suggested
improvements are the result of a flood that affected a whole lot of people a few years ago and
may happen again," he stressed.
Tom Brown pointed out that the impact on fees is probably a function of how quickly the work
gets done, and that's still a variable. "That's true,the total cost and how long it takes," Susan
. responded. The 15-year schedule needs to be evaluated to see if it is still physically possible to
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 8
build the projects in this timeframe.New master plan projects have not yet been included in this
projection.
Stormwater Budget Plan
Dave Agee, Chief Financial Officer, went on to say that currently we have extended our budget
plan to 10 years from the 5 years in which we actually do the budget. It calls for borrowing$10
million every other year, starting in 2001 through 2010;basically$50 million. In order to do that,
fees will have to go up about 6%per year based on current projections, and that's every year
between now and 2010.Essentially,the fees are going to double in that amount of time to cover
just part of the plan.
He said staff has already talked about what we are going to borrow in 2001. About $6 million is
for basins other than Canal Importation. Beyond that we haven't set priorities. Obviously, with
the numbers we are seeing, it is looking more like we are either going to have to extend this out
or see some very substantial fee increases over the next 20 years to be able to do this. Certainly it
calls into question the 15-year plan which we talked about earlier.
Dave would like to see the Board debate what is going to be an acceptable fee increase. "Is that
just in the context of the Storm Drainage Fund or the fees all Utilities customers pay?" he asked.
He tends to think it's probably the latter.He pointed out that we don't have enough information
yet on the costs of some of the other basins to fully inform the Board of what it's going to look
like or what the options are. "At least we should open it up for the Board to debate what,,
philosophically, they want to do."
Discussion
Dave Frick asked what the fees are now. "We clock those on the basis of an ERU and they are
$7.44 in 2000. The fee is actually going up 9.3%in 2001; that was 8% already planned for
capital and another 1.3%for the Stormwater Monitoring Program,"Dave Agee explained. "Fees
are going up to $8.13 in 2001 and 6% every year for the next 10 years if we stay on this course.
Dave pointed out that Canal Importation is$50 million. "And the other basins are at least another
$50 million?"David Lauer asked. Dave Agee said staff doesn't want to speculate about what that
might turn out to be. "What does the fee become at a 60/a growth rate?" Tom Brown asked. "It
almost doubles,"Dave A. replied.
Susan reiterated that Canal Importation and Old Town are still the top priorities of the basins in
the City. She pointed out that once these improvements are built out, as well as the
improvements in Old Town, a significant chunk of the damage areas in the City will have been
removed.
Mike Smith listed the options that the Board is faced with:
1. Change the standards of the City.
2. Modify the time interval in which the improvements are done.
3. Limit the number of rate increases
4. Do a combination of the above.
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 9
"If you feel strongly about standards,we should look at adjusting rates and timing, or is timing
more important than the rates, or are the rates more important than the timing?"Mike suggested.
"Those are ideas for discussion," he added.
Dave Frick suggested that we could also accelerate the rate increases. For example, you could
double the rates now and hold it constant for the next ten years. That would generate more
money to keep up with everything. "Physically doing the improvements becomes a limitation
with that scenario,"Mike responded.
Tom Brown asked if the 6% a year is real dollars?"In other words, where does inflation fit into
this?""All of this is based on assuming current dollars,"Dave Agee replied. Mike explained that
we are making a projection based on today's costs, and more than likely, costs are going to
increase, so a$50 million program, to try to get it done, would probably cost$60-70 million."
"So if you are going to keep up with inflation, you'll have to increase the nominal rate even more
than the 6%?" Tom continued. "When we do cost projections, the model assumes a certain
percent of increased cost, and if we program each project in a certain time frame, and inflate the
costs, you would probably see higher rates,"Mike explained. "If it goes to $15.00 in 10 years at
6%, then will it go to $23.00?" Tom Brown wondered. "Impacts are more focused on timing
issues because if our 15-year plan turns into a 30-year plan, the cost of the projects with inflation
will increase,"Mike said. "Either you pay now or you pay later."
"Is build-out in the Canal Importation area such that you don't have to worry about much new
development?" David Lauer asked. "Yes, that's correct," Susan replied. "The master plan takes
that into account,"Dave Rau noted. "When they build, they will protect themselves, so we won't
be adding more people to the damage rolls, or a lot of structures," Susan stated.
Paul Clopper agreed with David Lauer that we need to remember why we are doing this. We
suffer memory loss as we get further away from the '97 flood. "I can remember the Board sitting
around the table about 3 months after it happened and nothing was going to stop us from doing
what was right," he asserted. "I think it would be irresponsible of us and frankly, spineless to
back off on the 100-year protection,"he stressed, "with the proper measure of the benefit/cost
ratio," he added. "That's a good yard stick on which to judge that 100-year policy."He said he
didn't mind allowing the schedule to slide. Practically speaking, with all the infrastructure
improvements that need to be done, maybe the 15-year time frame we talked about earlier is a
little too aggressive. Dave Rau agreed that, even when we have half the basin protected,we start
seeing benefits right away. "If our benefit/cost ratio is favorable, I don't see how we could do
anything to change the current policy,"Paul insisted. Robert Ward also agreed with that
philosophy. "I would much rather work with the length of construction than to have fundamental
policy changes," he said.
Dave Frick reiterated a previous comment. "Are we better off increasing our rates higher now
and less later on, to `put a little more money in the bank now' while people still have a memory
of the flood?Instead of doing 6-8%over the years, maybe going 10-15% for the next couple of
. years, and back off to a 2 or 3% from then on when we start getting things constructed," he
suggested. "That way we will be gathering a little more money up front. We could put that in the
Water Board Minutes
December 7, 2000
Page 10
bank and save interest on bonds." "You would reach a point where your rates go down to a
maintenance level?"Robert Ward added.Both Robert and Paul Clopper thought that was an
interesting way of looking at it. "That's pretty aggressive and it carries my feelings about the
issue a little further. It's actually a pro-active way to address it,"Paul remarked.
"Somebody is always going to convert things to percentages," George Reed observed. "I don't
know how much we really need 'real' dollars because we don't know what the other half of this
is to start funding all of these things right now."He said that 10%on an ERU is going to be$.80.
"My view is, when it's small, why not increase it to say$2.00 or more now."Dave Rau said
some people are impacted differently though. "The dollar amount for the Foothills Fashion Mall,
for example, is going to be significant."David Lauer agreed that the commercial customer is
going to see a major increase. Tom Brown said another reason to collect more money now is
because the price of purchasing land is going up faster than the rate of inflation. David Lauer
asked if a 15%rate increase, ratcheted down over a 3-year period would be feasible.
Mike Smith said staff would like the Board to narrow down the options. It appears that the Board
does not want to change the standards. If that is a Board decision, staff could use that as a base.
Then staff can do some more work on timing and dollars. They would then put together a few
options based on what we have heard today. "It helps to narrow down the field a bit,"he
concluded.
ACTION: Affirmation Motion
George Reed moved that the Board affirm the current standards for flood protection in which we
protect to the 100-year flood with the criteria that benefits outweigh the costs. Paul Clopper
seconded the motion. Mike Smith emphasized that we are not going to do something different for
each basin. This will be for the whole City policy. Tom Brown was not clear about the
affirmation. He recalled that when the West Vine Basin was discussed, it appeared that because
of the benefits compared with the costs, it looked as if 50 or even less return period was more
sensible. "How does that decision relate to this motionT' "It's consistent that the benefits don't
outweigh the cost of 100-year protection," Staff replied. The vote to re-affirm the standards was
unanimous.
Staff will bring options on fees and timing to the January Board meeting.
Dave Frick wanted to raise the"check flood" idea again in connection with Canal Importation
Master Plan. "It would be nice, with Canal Importation, to see what the residual floodplain looks
like if we were to have a '97 event again, and maybe center it about 2 miles north of where it
was."He thinks that we seem to lull people into thinking that they have 100-year protection.
"I00-year protection doesn't necessarily mean that you are not going to get wet. It's nice to have
something in the record that would show that there is a potential there."
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes (excerpt)
September 27,2000
Page 3
e to go elsewhere. Bruce argued the point that it should be an integrated solution. JessiW
said t if we don't put the community park in this location, then we have to find
location.
Mary said that was on the Choices 95 selection committee and he ys it (Southwest
Community Park) was chased as a youth sports complex. Marty sai a ballot language and
Choices 95 voters informs requires a youth sports complex to hided in the park.
Mary said that he likes the design, t if you construct as drop in they will eventually be
programmed. Ross said he sees Roll Moore ' same area of the city and there is a
plethora of sports usage in that park and a could look at a more passive use for this
park. Dean Hoag said there is such a need eIds and soccer fields in our community that
this youth sports complex is needed. P udnut sat hat he likes the buffer zones and how we
could balance the use.
Marty concluded the d' sion by thanking Bruce for his present 'on. He said that right now
the projected time a for beginning construction of this park will be . Our intent is to do
the public inpuand design in 2003, and hopefully have an approved plan ' 2003, construct in
2004-2005 d open in 2006. Our typical process is to have open houses and input from all
the c unity. We will look forward to their input at that time. Lance ask their only
rose is to lobby for this passive park. Bruce replied yes.
Canal Importation Plan
Susan Hayes spoke to the Board about the Canal Importation Plan and how it affects City Park.
She [Wade a presentation to the Board at their April meeting. She explained that the major
drainage corridor is in the northern portion of the basin, located in the west central part of Fort
Collins and is subject to flooding. This master plan identifies projects to reduce flooding. She
explained that the City is developing a plan that will have no structural damage with storms.
The consultant has worked with the Parks and Golf staff to develop the best plan that will work
around our uses. We are trying to get as much water into Sheldon Lake as possible. We need to
dredge Sheldon Lake, take it down approximately 18 inches, and put the aeration system back
into the lake. There will be a submerged box culvert into the lake. We could enhance the
shoreline of the lake with this project. Another key component is there is a local drainage problem
in the ballfields, and the Stormwater Department will correct that during the project. There was a
question about the schedule. Susan replied that it has been pushed back because of financing. We
are looking at doing this as #I I on our list and is scheduled after 2005.
Ross asked if the funding is from Stormwater fees? Susan said, yes. Overland Park, Avery Park,
City Park, City Park Nine Golf Course will benefit from these Stormwater improvements. The
construction project will only affect City Park and City Park Nine Golf Course. She then asked
the Board for a recommendation to adopt the plan as it relates to the parks. Dean Hoag says the
overall project is needed. He doesn't know how this affects other basins within the City. Susan
said Council will review the projects and address the basins in priority. They review the budget
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
September 27,2000
Page 4
each year and determine what projects are most imperative at the time. She said that Virgil and
Craig can attest that Parks and Recreation staff is up-to-date on all of our projects. Marty added
that Stormwater works well with our department. Ross asked if there is a plan for the shoreline.
Susan said that could be part of the master plan and it is a concern to restore it. Marty said that
Parks and Recreation has received a$100,000 grant to do improvements on Sheldon Lake.
Susan said that this project will not be detrimental to the improvements we have made to Sheldon
Lake. Susan said we are looking at lowering the water surface 18 inches to two feet and
whatever shoreline gets exposed it will be rehabbed. The project would do the rehab. When we
get to the final design we will work closely with staff Jessica asked where do you take the
sludge? Susan said that is a good question and we are in the process of studying that and it
depends on what is in the sludge and if it is toxic or not. Marty asked when you lower the surface
will the dredging be greater than that so the lake capacity is increased? Susan said that
Stormwater will dredge out only the depth we need. Staff needs to think about the big picture.
Marty said his hope would be to bring the lake back to its original condition.
The aeration system might help the quality of the water extremely. Del said that we would have a
strong interest in the dredging plan. We don't want to lose any of the capacity we have now. We
want to end up with a viable lake without weeds growing up everywhere. Lance said we are
questioning if we are dredging sludge or the land below the sludge. Virg said that we have hauled
in several tons of rip rap to stabilize the banks. Del asked about the surface area of the lake and
what is our objective?
Ross Cunniff made the following motion: The Board is not endorsing the entire Canal
Importation Plan because the entire plan is beyond the scope of the Board's jurisdiction. The
Board is endorsing the portion of the plan that impacts City Park and Sheldon Lake on condition
that the implementation of the Plan is not detrimental to the condition or aesthetic quality of the
park or Sheldon Lake; that the water quality of the Lake is not negatively impacted and that the
cost of achieving these objectives is paid for by the Stormwater project. The motion was
seconded by Jessica MacMillan, and passed unanimously(7-0).
Uodate an impoet of the Sentembpr Snow Stenn on ear Urban Forest
Cip
orester Tim Buchanan said that this was the 0 worst storm for tree breaking in the past
years. t derately severe, however, had a big impact on our department. P orestry,
and Cemetery peop ted clean up on Sunday. Estimate is that it will weeks to do the
convective pruning at a cost 00,000. Approximatelyy7 '' trees will be removed and
replaced. Total City costs are approx $40 , m9� cludmg Streets Department and our
costs. The decision was made by Ci ger Fischbach that the City will not remove
Lprivate property tree limbs. plained that this is not stating blow to our trees. We
rented two m trucks from Denver as there wasn't any�Teal a in the Denver area.ne urt or killed by this stone. Jessica MacMillan asked where are s that have
taken down? Tim replied City Park area encountered the most damage.
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes (excerpt)
Apri126,2000
Page 3
end the meeting of the 10a'; Jessica will attend the May 25 meeting. There will be no formid
pres lion, only an open house with staff representation available for comments and ons.
The comm park serves the entire city so therefore we try to get input from v locations
around the city. said after we receive input from the open houses, w ll get input from
the homeowner assoct ' ns in the southeast area. Jessica asked if th is going to straighten
out Lemay Avenue? Craig to some degree.
Jessica asked about the parking? Crai id ther be three parking lots: Two accessed by
Lemay and one accessed from Fossil Cree ay. Jessica asked about the size of the dog
park? Craig said approximately two
Ross asked about the Fo ' ig and if it will be periodically r ished? Craig said that it will
be. Ross suggeste ' cluding some permanent fixtures in the dirt. thought this was a good
idea. Park P tng staff will revisit these plans and comments from o en houses every
month a need to have comments completed by September. Staff is arrangi or a site tour
the Board next month.
Canal Importation Drainage Plan
Susan Hayes, Senior Utility Engineer with Stormwater spoke to the Board on the Canal
Importation Drainage Plan and how it relates to Sheldon Lake. She said she has been working
with Virgil Taylor, Craig Foreman, and Jerry Brown on this project.
Background: 20 years ago, staff compiled a basin plan for the City. The plan we are concerned
with regarding this Board is the Canal Importation Plan, which includes the New Mercer and
Larimer#2 ditches. All the master plans are funded through a Utility fee that is paid for citywide.
The storm in 1997 flooded because there are not enough natural channels in the City and the area
is very urbanized. The Basin is bounded by Mulberry on the north, Drake on the south, Shields
on the east and foothills on the west. Irrigation ditches spilling over cause flooding. The
channels are not big enough,nor are the drainage ditches. The original master plan didn't look at
the Mulberry corridor.
This master plan will add more detention ponds, and bigger channels and bigger stormwater
pipes. This will reduce all floodplains on the map and should provide protection from 100-year
storms. However, the plan needs to be cost effective, and paid for through the Utility funds. We
have the option for grants and low interest rate, as well. The Utilities Department is limited, as an
enterprise fund, as to how much the City can collect. The funding will be ongoing and Council
will approve the master plans and the fee structure will be managed accordingly. Mary asked,
regarding the areas that are being developed now are we planning Stormwater drainage in those
areas? Susan said yes, each plan is unique and we set criteria for development. Dean asked how
do you prioritize what gets fixed first? She said that Council will prioritize the projects.
Referring to Sheldon Lake and the impact on the park, the key component is to get more
detention on the golf course. We have a detention pond designed on the golf course on #6
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
April 26,2000
Page 4
fairway. Sheldon Lake doesn't have enough capacity to hold more stonnwater, so we are going
to dredge the lake and take it down about another 15 inches. The functions of the lake will
remain the same. The project will raise the ditch from the City Park Train tracks to Mountain
Avenue. Parks Manager Virgil Taylor has worked with the consultants. The lake will not look
much different than it does now. Jason Stutzman asked how will the water change in the lake?
She explained that it will be lowered. We could be up to two feet below the present water
surface. Ross asked how long the dredging will take place? Susan said it depends on the
material we extract from the lake and where they can dispose of it. The aeration system will be
in place and then removed for this project, and then reinstalled.
In the process, we will solve a drainage problem along the ballfields and golf course and that will
help the localized drainage problem in these areas. Jean Helburg asked about the floodway near
the ballfields? Susan said that the localized flows will be eliminated and will pick up spillage
from the New Mercer Canal. Del asked what would be the benefits for Sheldon Lake? Virgil
said better fish habitat,better water quality, and a deeper lake. However, if we get into the gravel
layer it could cause a water loss for us. If so,we might have to line the lake.
Clearview Channel/Avery Park Pond — Susan explained that we can't make Avery Pond larger,
however, we would like to improve the riparian habitat by providing larger vegetation. When
completing the Clearview Channel work,the ditches won't spill onto the park.
In summary, we are looking at $40,000,000 improvements to the City's stormwater drainage
system. Susan will return to this Board for a final recommendation at the end of the surnmer.
Visit their web site at WWW.Ci.fort-collins.co.us and click on Utilities, then Stormwater, then
Drainage Basins.
Skate Pa.k Geneeyta4�
!uon Stutzman, Civil Engineer/Pazk Planning said that we have had an explosion of skate par
in the e. We have approximately 1,000 skaters in our community. In 1994 City
constructed i rst skate park at Northside Aztlan Community Center. In 7 2000, we
added two wooden ipea. Thanks in part to a grant from Great Outdo olorado we are in
the process of designing constructing our second skate park. Poiling the winter, staff met
with local skaters and a professio skate park designer to a plan for the new skate park in
Edora Park. Through research we disc d that se, Colorado has one of the newest
skate parks in the state. Because of limited . g, they used a group of localized skaters and
parents who designed and fundraised, an i t the p 'th local people for only$140,000. We
contacted the Montrose group an owed their design. ad our local skaters vote on the
best skaters in the comm ' to serve on the design comma We have approximately
$200,000 to constru is facility. Jason explained that the edges of owls will meet the
height of the s in the park. We are going to build a clay model and sh s model to
contrac in the bid process. Lance asked how they will build this? Jason explain ' will be
e from concrete to provide a solid, long-lasting structure, built similar to curbs and gu
Golf Board Minutes (excerpt)
April 19,2000
Page 2
sts? Jerry said that Kevin may donate some. Brian Cobb asked/Mand
h it costs to run
pr Jerry replied that last year we spent $2,542, all from donike Sanders sai ewoul ike the support from the Golf Board at this event. Karen thiis a wonderf i vent.She is g d that we are not having a play day and instead doing inst She ask we areproviding way for under privileged kids who cannot afford to plareer sai at if kidscan't afford t lay,we will find a way for them to play.
Status of the Col dale Irri ation Pro'ect
Collindale Superintend t Doug Evans said that the new irrigatio is totally installed.We are using the new syst , but we are using it manually and no the computer. Theprogram will be installed nex week. The contractor needs to re- e trenches and place
the yard markets on the fairwa Craft Trophy is making the kern. Jerry pointed out that this
is not a conflict of interest as the ntractor purchased th irectly from Henry Fry's company
through a quote process. Doug not that we now hav excellent irrigation system, but he
feels that the contractor has been slow -compacting a trenches back and seeding. Trenches
should have been re-seeded starting April , but th contractor pulled most of their crew off the
course in mid-March and sent them to anoth j . They are presently 2/3 of the way finished.
However, they are ahead of schedule accordin our contract so Doug feels we can't complain.
Jerry noted that we revised the Public N cc for use f golf carts from May 1 through May 18
• not allowing carts on the golf coursed ng that time. ug feels that once everything is seeded
and we start watering heavily the tr ches will be muddy d we need to keep the carts off the
newly seeded areas. The grass sprout in seven days, an 'ven another week, it can endure
traffic. We will need to con ' cue to re-seed throughout the s er and perhaps sod in some
areas. Trenches that settle 11 be the responsibility of the contra or, however our staff'will do
what they can to make course in playable condition. Henry as after the May 18 date, do
we want to do a green ' e where carts can't cross the line? Doug said t t is a good idea, and he
will rope off near green so everybody has to go around and not get clo to the green with the
carts. Henry sai hat it is amazing on the good condition of the course c dering the major
construction has occurred there this winter. Doug said that the upside is t we had a mild
winter and a situation was ideal for construction. Tom White added that we very lucky
that our ff kept the old irrigation system at Collindale in working order last ye it could
have st much more to replace. Doug said that he has sold some of the old irrigatio arts to
gol ourses in Colorado Springs and Sterling. Jerry said we are very fortunate to have g as
superintendent at Collindale.
Canal Importation Basin Master Drainneeway Plan
Background: Susan Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer, spoke to the Board regarding the
Canal Importation Basin Master Drainage Plan and how it relates to City Park Nine Golf Course.
She noted that she has been an engineer with the City for 13 years and is in charge of the
stormwater basins throughout the city. We are in the process of updating our plans. She
explained that in Fort Collins we have major canals through the City. The New Mercer Canal
Golf Board Minutes
April 19,2000
Page 3
flows through City Park Nine Golf Course. This particular basin is highly urbanized and has
very small channels. The New Mercer is to the west and Larimer #2 runs parallel through City
Park. She gave some background of the ditch flows. We are going to concentrate on the
Mulberry corridor. The water does over flow on the golf course and streets. We want to look at
improvements to this area. The best scenario is to build a detention pond in the golf course.
There will be no water in it unless there is a large storm and the water will be released quickly to
flow down stream. The goal is to slow it down in the golf course and direct it to Sheldon Lake.
Summary of Corridor Improvements. The stormwater will be piped underground through the
golf course over to Sheldon Lake in City Park. Jerry and Susan agreed that this is a doable
project. City Park Nine Golf Professional Dale Smigelsky said that it could be out of the line of
sight. Dale asked what is the worst case scenario? Karen Joslin-Aured asked how many times
will it infringe on the fairway? . The pond will have water in it that will go out to the a fairway
no more than six times a year(only inches deep)but a 100-year event could fill the pond. Henry
Fry asked how far is it from the tee box to the east end of the lake --- Answer 150 yards.
Basically, there won't be many people who will hit it in this area. Jerry explained that we will
add an intermediate tee box. Byrd Curtis asked why couldn't we dig the ditch deeper and have
standing water all the time. City Park Nine Superintendent Dave Sadler said we don't want
standing water. We need to get the water out as soon as possible. Susan said that doesn't
mitigate the stormwater problem. Dave explained that it is just a depression in the land and the
grass will be maintained as it is now. Susan explained that it will be topography and not a berm.
Susan provided the rationale for why we looked at the golf course. It is the only open_space land
in the area. There isn't enough open space west of this land and going across Mulberry would be
very expensive with all the utilities under the road. Henry asked why the pipe doesn't come
straight across the golf course. She explained that it is to avoid the trees. Henry asked what is
the possibility to bury the ditch on #6 with this project. Susan said it would not be part of the
project. Dave Sadler explained that we don't want that ditch buried, as we need it to overflow if
the need arises. Susan further explained there will be some storm sewer work on Mulberry.
Jerry said the detention pond will add some design to the course.
Brian Cobb asked about the grade drop from where it starts on#6 to Larimer#2? Susan said that
it is downfall or gravity fall into Larimer#2 and spill over into Sheldon Lake. Henry asked who
will clean up the detention pond when it does flood and drain. Susan said Stormwater would
clean it up. This flow will be out of a pipe and is not surface water. Tom White asked if she is
working on floodplain throughout the city? She said yes. We will be eventually updating the
entire city.
Timeline: Susan said that this is a four-month project. It will be after October 15 and prior to
April 15,but not necessarily this year. The pipe will be a box culvert 7' by 4' at some points and
then 8' by 4' as it gets closer to City Park. When they do the project, they will restore it back to
its original condition or better. Bill Rutledge said this is an environmentalist issue and the golf
course (as an open space land) is the only reasonable place to do this project. We need to get
credit for solving this problem for the City. Jerry fully agreed. This has been a high priority for
Golf Board Minutes
April 19,2000
Page 4
City Council, however, they have yet to prioritize the projects. Susan will present her project to
Council sometime this summer. Byrd asked how this will be funded? She explained through a
fee on your utilities.
Karen asked if Susan would like a recommendation from the Golf Board tonight? The Board
conceptually supports the project at this time. Mike Sanders said that the Golf Board will send a
representative to Council if needed. Susan will bring a formal plan back to this Board and ask
for the recommendation at that time. She said this is a master plan and the basic vision. Brian
asked if there are any assumptions on the water flow? She explained that we put together a plan
for the 100-year flood event. We haven't looked at an alternative plan. Our policy is to meet
100-year plan in a cost-effective way. Susan said that a Web site has been set up for this project
as follows:
www.ci.fort-collins.co.us and go to the Utilities site and click on "Stormwater'; then "Drainage
Basins", and view the basins that are listed.
Je said that we received a response letter from Council Liaison Bill Bertschy stating tha e
Golf and should go forth with their plans to identify potential land sites and financin tions
for a p ntial new public golf course in Fort Collins by 2005. Cultural, ' rary, and
Recreational ices Director Mike Powers and Jerry wrote a letter to the Utiliti Director and
Director of Nat Resources inquiring if there is any available City-owned d. Mike Smith,
Utilities Director, re nded that land at Prospect and I-25 is owned by City and that could
be a possibility for a ne olf course. Real estate brokers Jerry has spo n to have said there isn't
much land available in the for a golf course. One option is at we could explore a joint
venture with CSU. Mike Sand is on the Ram Masters Golf oster Club,which has endorsed
a new golf course for CSU.
Mike explained that there is land near the mer o emay and Vine available. This could be a
privately owned/public use golf course with ses surrounding the course. This could be a
partnership with the city for the private de v op t. Mike thinks this will be a private golf
course, but the problem could be the 'lability o water. The City could tie in with the
developer to always keep it open as a blic course at re able fees. He further explained that
Budweiser is going to double its acity within the near fu . There could be space for a golf
course there. Mountain Vist ould also be a possibility that c d become a City-run 18-hole
golf course. Bill Rutledg sked about land north of the Poudre er? Mike said that it is
probably too enviro tally sensitive. Jerry asked Mike what hi ought is on Link-N-
Greens? Mike ex p nod that the surrounding land is not for sale for develo ent, and probably
not environm ly feasible. Karen Joslin-Aured asked if we have any contro g say of what
the parties o are interested in constructing the private owned golf course do? 'ke said we
have n gotten that far. Frank Blanco asked if the Council would make a final
reco endation on the water? Jerry said first the Water Board and then ultimately th ity
uncil. CSU could do their golf course and the private developer could do their own thing.
. City of Fort Collins
Cultural,Library,and Recreational Services
Golf Board Minutes
(excerpt)
Minutes: Regular Meeting of October 18, 2000
City Council Liaison to the Board: Councilman Bill Bertschy
Staff Support to the Board: Jerry P. Brown, Manager of Golf, at 221.6350, and Jackie Rael,
Executive Administrative Assistant.
Call Meeting to Order: Chairperson Mike Sanders called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Review: No changes to the printed Agenda
Items of Note:
• ee Board Members terms will expire December 31. Mindy Markley has decided to ret'
from ' Board. Henry Fry has served two consecutive terms and cannot reap e
Sanders has lied. Nine applicants-have applied for the three positions.
• Superintendent Dave Sa announced that he is ordering ew benches for City Park
Nine.
• City Council, at their meeting of Octob First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2000,
unanimously authorized the asing Agent nter into an Extension of the Golf
Professional/Concession ' greement with Dale Sim at City Park Nine. Second
Reading is sched or November 7.
Appro of Minutes: On a motion by Tom White, seconded by Byrd Curtis, inutes of the
ular Meeting of September 13, 2000 were unanimously(8-0) approved.
Note: Henry Fry joined the Board meeting after the minutes were approved.
.Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan
Susan Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer, gave a presentation to the Board at the April meeting
regarding the Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan on the Mulberry Corridor and
how it relates to City Park Nine Golf Course. The stormwater travels down the irrigation canal,
overflows the banks, and spreads out north and south of Mulberry. Heavy stormwaters are not
contained in Sheldon Lake. Susan explained that we strive to contain stormwater in the event of
a 100-year flood. The consultant is proposing to build a detention pond at the 6's fairway on
City Park Nine. This would include a two-phase project with Sheldon Lake rehabilitation first
• Golf Board Minutes
October 18,2000
Page 2
taking the lake down 18 to 20 inches and then Phase 2 would be the project on the golf course.
With a 100-year event, the water would drain off the golf course within 24 hours after the storm.
This would eliminate flooding on Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. It appears at this time that
this project will probably not begin until 2008, and we are looking at the Phase 2 golf course
project after 2008. Susan asked for a recommendation from the Board for use of the golf course
as described above. She said Stormwater would complete this project and restore the golf course
to its existing playability or better.
Byrd Curtis asked about raising the ditch? Susan said we would berm it 24 inches. Dave Sadler
asked about berming on the sixth hole. He said that we can't berm near the Oh green. Susan
agrees that we need to be cognizant about playability on the course. Dave also asked if we will
lose capacity in Sheldon Lake? Susan replied that they will dredge and have at least the same
amount of water volume or more. We will maintain the volume of water that we presently have
and need for the park and for the golf course.
Susan explained one of the weak points in other previous designs was that all financial details
were not outlined. Therefore the Stormwater staff has been meeting with the individual
departments and Boards to determine the detail of needs that have to be met. She explained that
City Council will have the final financial decision as to the schedule of the project. They could,
for example, direct staff to raise fees to move this project up.
Mike Sanders said that the likelihood is that no one on this Board will be around in 2008 when
this project is done. He feels that Stormwater will have to leave the course in the same or better
condition as it was previous to the project. We do not object to the plan as presented tonight as it
relates to the City Park Nine Golf Course. The Golf Fund and Golf Course must receive all lost
revenues that would occur during the time of the project. Karen Joslin-Aured added that we
would need the course to return to playability in a reasonable amount of time. Any significant
changes to the project in the future need to be brought back to the Board. Brian Cobb questioned
how closely tied is the benefit cost ratio? Susan replied that we don't do a benefit cost ratio on
specific projects. The Basin as a whole would support the project. We look at the citywide
project as it relates to safety of the citizens. Brian further asked in 10 years would the benefit
cost ratios be higher? Susan said as property values rise, then so do the benefit costs. On a
motion by Byrd Curtis, seconded by Tom White, the Board voted unanimously (9-0) to accept
the Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan as follows:
A. The Board does not object to the plan as presented tonight as it relates to the City Park Nine
Golf Course.
B. The Golf Fund and the Golf Course must receive all lost revenues that would occur during
the time of the project.
C. City Park Nine Golf Course needs to return to full playability within a reasonable amount of
time both after construction and after a storm.
D. Any significant changes to the plan need to be brought back to the Golf Board for review.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
mow, Natural Resources Department
*A=s
MEMORANDUM
of Fort Collins FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: January 6, 2001
TO: Mayor and Council Members
John Fischbach, City Manager
FROM: Randy Fischer on Behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board FIA _
SUBJECT: Proposed Canal Importation Basin Master Plan
Throughout 2000, the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) received
several presentations by the Storm Water Utility staff on the proposed Canal
Importation Basin Master Plan (the Master Plan). Having reviewed the content
of the proposed Master Plan, we are submitting the following comments and
recommendations for Council consideration:
• Consistent with the Board's responsibility for advising Council on natural
resources issues, our assessment of the Master Plan is that its
implementation will have negative impacts on wildlife habitat and natural
features within the basin that cannot be readily mitigated. Specifically, we
believe the Red Fox Meadows Natural Area, the riparian corridor along the
Canal Importation Channel, and the riparian habitat along the banks of the
Larimer No. 2 Canal may be irreparably harmed by some of the provisions of
the Master Plan.
The NRAB is compelled to express our concern over the shockingly high
economic cost of implementing the proposed Master Plan. At a price tag of
approximately $49 million in today's dollars, the Board believes the proposed
Master Plan represents a high-cost, over-engineered approach toward
achieving relatively minor improvements in public health and safety at full
implementation. We are concerned about the high cost of the plan because
we believe this over-engineered approach sacrifices some of the few
remaining natural features, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat in the basin.
• To put the cost of the proposed Master Plan in perspective, staff has
estimated the economic cost of the plan at approximately $77,000 per
affected structure. This per-structure cost is based on staffs assumption
that the plan will partially mitigate damage to 636 structures during a 100-year
storm event. The NRAB believes neither the extreme cost nor the potential
for natural resource damages are justified to implement this Master Plan.
NRAB Recommendation
Proposed Canal Importation Basin Master Plan
January 6,2001
Page 1 of 2
281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6600 • FAX(970)224-6177
• The NRAB believes the cost and natural resources damage incurred to
implement this costly Master Plan are not justified as long as new
development or redevelopment is allowed to occur within floodplains in this
an other basins throughout the City.
• Based on the above-stated concerns, we recommend that Council direct staff
to revise the plan to reflect a broader spectrum of lower-cost alternatives that
will have less impact on the few remaining natural areas and riparian
corridors within the basin.
Thank you for your attention to our recommendations on this issue. Please feel
free to contact me with any comments or questions regarding our
recommendations.
CC:
Mike Smith
Bob Smith
Susan Hayes
04
NRAB Recommendation
Proposed Canal Importation Basin Master Plan
January 6, 2001
Page 2 of 2