HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/13/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
October 13, 2015
3:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Water Development Fees. (staff: Donnie Dustin, Carol Webb, Lance Smith; 15 minute staff
presentation; 20 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities’ water development fees. Staff
will present background information on the Utilities current water development fees, which include
raw water requirements (RWR) and plant investment fees (PIF), and consider additional studies and
next steps for making changes to these fees.
2. Ditch and Reservoir Companies. (staff: Carol Webb, Dean Klingner, Kevin Gertig, Laurie Kadrich;
10 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback from City Council regarding opportunities for the
development of a broader master plan for ditches in the City. Staff will provide general information on
ditch companies operating in Fort Collins and seek feedback regarding a summary of the findings of
a ditch company Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Staff will
also provide an update on progress related to Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) Offer 130.1, “Arthur
Ditch Master Plan and Alternative Analysis”.
3. Water Efficiency Plan. (staff: Liesel Hans, Lisa Rosintoski; 15 minute staff presentation; 30 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this work session item is to present the draft of the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan
update for feedback Council consideration of adoption. The Utilities Water Conservation Team, along
with input from the Water Board and various City staff, has developed the draft Water Efficiency Plan
update for Council consideration. The draft plan, if adopted, will replace the current 2010 Water
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Conservation Plan. The Plan provides goals, objectives, and implementation principles that will guide
activities undertaken by the Water Conservation Team as part of the Budget for Outcomes (BFO)
process. The proposed Plan aims to support and promote the conservation ethic of Fort Collins and
ensure the efficient and beneficial use of our water resources in support of the Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy.
The State of Colorado Water Conservation Act of 2004 (House Bill 04-1365) requires entities that
provide retail water and have total annual demands of 2,000 acre-feet or more to submit an updated
Water Efficiency Plan at least every seven years to the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB). An entity’s plan is required to include sections on water supplies, historic water demands
and demand management activities, the planning process and goals, selection of activities,
implementation and monitoring, and adoption and approval.
Council will take a dinner break from 5:00 - 6:00 pm, and then will resume the
work session.
4. Community Recycling Ordinance. (staff: Caroline Mitchell, Jeff Mihelich, Lucinda Smith; 15
minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider options to update and potentially expand Fort Collins’ Pay-As-
You-Throw (PAYT) ordinance into a Community Recycling Ordinance, in support of the Road to Zero
Waste and Climate Action Plan goals. Options include updating the price differential between trash
can sizes under the current PAYT ordinance for single-family homes, and expanding recycling to all
multi-family and commercial locations in Fort Collins. In two years, the options under consideration
are bundling organics collection (food scraps, yard trimmings, etc.) into the single-family service
rates, and requiring composting of food scraps from grocers and large restaurants.
5. Community Recycling Center and Other Zero Waste Initiatives. (staff: Susie Gordon, Jeff
Mihelich, Lucinda Smith; 10 minute staff presentation; 35 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to present information about four approaches to expanding citizens’
opportunities to divert more waste materials from landfill disposal, in the interests of implementing
“Road to Zero Waste” strategies that will help the community reach adopted Zero Waste goals. The
four approaches are:
1. Build a complete Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials” as
previously described at the June 23, 2015 work session.
2. Build a modified CRC “lite” at the same previously identified site (Timberline/East Prospect) that:
a. does not accept green-waste/wood
3. Build a modified CRC “lite” at the same site that:
a. does not accept green-waste/wood and
b. is only open two days per week (not five)
4. Redirect efforts to a bundle of other strategies that support progress toward Zero Waste goals.
6. Update on Community Policing. (staff: Jerry Schiager, John Hutto, Jeremy Yonce; 15 minute staff
presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide City Council with a summary of current community policing
programs and activities. Police Services would also like to receive direction from Council regarding a
future Campus West substation.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Development Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities’ water development fees. Staff will present
background information on the Utilities current water development fees, which include raw water requirements
(RWR) and plant investment fees (PIF), and consider additional studies and next steps for making changes to
these fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The Agenda Item Summary and presentation provide background on the Utilities water development fees and
potential changes.
1. What questions or feedback does Council have regarding the Utilities’ water development fees?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins Utilities water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City continues
to grow into the Growth Management Area, more of the water needs will be met by surrounding water districts
(mostly the East Larimer County and Fort Collins-Loveland Water Districts – “Districts”). Most of the discussion
relative to water development fees in this document is focused on the Utilities water service area (Attachment 1).
However, Utilities is currently meeting with the Districts to discuss the options that may be available for Utilities
and the Districts to have more consistent water requirement methodologies.
The Utilities’ water development fees consist of two components; raw water requirements (RWR) and plant
investment fees (PIFs). RWR are a dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to ensure that
adequate water supply and associated infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs) are available to serve new
development. PIFs are one-time fees paid by developers or builders for the cost of the utility infrastructure (e.g.,
treatment plant capacity, distribution system, etc.) needed to serve a new development. The Utilities’ water
development fees generally reflect lot size, development type and/or size of tap. The Utilities’ current RWR and
PIF schedules are attached (Attachments 2, 3, and 4).
Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
The amount of RWR needed to meet the city’s future water supply needs includes calculating the projected
amount of future water use, determining the water rights and/or facilities needed to meet that projected use and
adjusting the RWR to acquire the necessary supplies and/or facilities.
Calculating the projected amount of future water use depends on projected growth (both population and
commercial/industrial) and the water supply planning criteria in the Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy, which include the planning demand level (150 gallons per capita per day or “gpcd”), drought criterion (1-in-
50 year) and storage reserve factor (20 percent of annual demand). The Utilities’ water service area population is
projected to grow to about 178,000 by the year 2065 (from the current population of about 133,000). In addition,
large contractual water use is expected to increase in the future. The Utilities total projected treated water needs
1
Packet Pg. 3
October 13, 2015 Page 2
Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) (gallons/year)
3/4 0.90 293,270
1 3.00 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 1,955,110
2 9.60 3,128,170
3 and above based on projected used
are expected to be about 38,400 acre-feet per year by the year 2065, which is about 7,400 acre-feet/year greater
than the existing firm yield of about 31,000 acre-feet per year.
In order to meet these projected water supply needs, Utilities has been pursuing acquisition of additional storage
capacity through the Halligan Water Supply Project. The acquisition of this additional storage would meet the
additional water demands, as well as provide a storage reserve for emergency water supply shortages (e.g.,
pipeline failure). The Halligan project requires a federal permitting process that includes looking at alternatives to
the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, but these alternatives would meet the same needs most likely at a higher
cost. Besides acquiring additional storage capacity, Utilities projects a longer term need for some additional water
rights to complement the additional storage capacity and some additional raw water (operational) storage to
administer the Utilities’ water rights (similar to Rigden Reservoir).
The current amount of RWR assessed for residential development is based on a calculation that incorporates
indoor and outdoor use components and a water supply factor multiplier. The current residential RWR schedule
calculation is:
RWR (acre-feet) = 1.92 x [ ( 0.18 x # of units ) + ( 1.2 x net acres ) ]
The current amount of RWR assessed for commercial development is based on the average use for particular
meter (or tap) sizes and includes a water supply factor multiplier. The current commercial RWR schedule is:
The water supply factor used in both the residential and commercial RWR schedules is currently 1.92, which
means that Utilities requires 1.92 times the amount of the projected water use of a development. Reasons for this
factor are to account for treatment and distribution losses in the supply system, variable demands of customers
(e.g., higher use during hot, dry years), variable yields of supplies (e.g., less yield in droughts) and variable yield
of the different supply sources accepted by Utilities (since some yield better than others). The current water
supply factor does appear to consider storage in the water supply system, which is important since storage can
use existing water rights to increase the Utilities firm yield (or amount of demand it can meet through the 1-in-50
year drought).
The RWR residential and commercial schedules were developed in the 1980s in a study that was conducted with
the Districts and was based on water use patterns at the time. Given a reduction in overall water use by Utilities
customers of approximately 25 percent in the last decade or so, the values used in these RWR calculations and
schedule should be updated. The Districts have agreed to look at these values and consider similar RWR
calculation adjustments, the first meeting of which occurred on October 2. As part of this updated study, changes
to the water supply factor will also be considered.
Additional consideration will need to be given to potential changes of the commercial RWR schedule, since that
schedule also sets a minimum annual allotment in which commercial customers that use over the allotment will
incur a surcharge rate. Also, there is currently a business inequity among the Utilities commercial customers since
Indoor Use
Component
Outdoor Use
Component
Water Supply
Factor
1
Packet Pg. 4
October 13, 2015 Page 3
many of them do not have a minimum annual allotment because no new water service permit has been requested
at those premises since before the annual allotments starting being assessed in 1984. Changes to the
commercial RWR schedule will create customers with different annual allotments for the same meter size, which
could further complicate business inequities and create confusion among some customers.
Once the amount of RWR for a development is determined, the RWR can be satisfied through Utilities with either
acceptable water rights or cash in-lieu-of water rights (or a combination of both). The water rights currently
accepted by Utilities for satisfaction of RWR are attached (ATTACHMENT 5). Although Colorado-Big Thompson
Project (“CBT”) units and North Poudre Irrigation Company shares (which include four CBT units per share) are
on the acceptable list of water rights, neither of these rights have been turned in to Utilities for RWR satisfaction in
over 15 years because of their relative value to other water rights accepted by Utilities. In addition, Utilities cannot
purchase CBT units based on Northern Water policy. The water rights Utilities has received in recent years are
shares in the irrigation ditches that run through the City, collectively known as the Southside Ditches.1 However,
acquiring additional Southside Ditch rights now do very little to increase the Utilities firm yield, since all of them
are only available in summer months when the yield of the existing Utilities water rights portfolio are in excess of
current (or even future projected) demands in most years. Also, in drought years, the Southside Ditch water rights
yield considerably less. Although the Utilities gives the average annual yield of these water rights (in acre-feet per
share) toward satisfaction of the RWR, the actual amount of increase in firm yield to Utilities water supplies is
minimal. For these reasons, Utilities has been focused on acquiring additional storage (e.g., Halligan Water
Supply Project) to better utilize the existing water rights. In consideration of this, Utilities staff believes accepting
cash only (instead of a mix of water rights and cash) would be preferable. Once storage is acquired, the cash can
still be used to purchase additional rights as needed. Utilities staff will further consider the effects of a cash-only
RWR system as it moves forward with additional studies and potential changes to the RWR.
The Utilities cash in-lieu-of water rights (“cash”) rate is currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR. This fee is an
impact fee based on the Utilities’ water supply needs (and not directly related to the market value of water rights).
Changes to the rate have previously considered several factors, including the market price of CBT units, the
potential value of local water rights (e.g., Southside Ditches) and the mix of water rights and cash that was
received through RWR satisfaction. CBT prices were relatively constant for 10 to 12 years until the last few years,
with more recent prices around $25,000 per CBT unit. This equates to about $50,000 per acre-foot of firm yield
(given a drought yield of 0.5 acre-feet per CBT unit). The cost to acquire additional storage capacity should be a
large factor in determining the RWR case rate, since it can increase the Utilities firm yield (and provide other
benefits) with existing water rights at much less expense. The current estimated cost to Utilities of the Halligan
Water Supply Project is about $41.5 million. Given the approximate 7,400 acre-feet increase in the Utilities’ firm
yield, the cost of the Halligan project is around $5,600 per acre-foot of firm yield. It should be noted that
alternatives to Halligan that might be selected through the permitting process could cost substantially more (up to
four times the cost).
In addition to storage costs, staff plans to study and consider the value of the Utilities’ existing water rights and
supply facilities in the assessment of the cash rate, as well as a better assessment of the market value of the
Southside Ditches (since the Utilities cash rate influences their market value). Utilities staff is engaging
consultants to help with these evaluations and need additional time to consider how they may effect potential
changes to the RWR. As part of this study and consideration, staff and its consultants will consider a means (e.g.,
calculation) of setting the cash rate that can be updated more regularly – as well as how these evaluations factor
into a potential cash-only RWR system.
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
Plant investment fees cover the additional costs of new development on the treatment plant, transmission and
distribution systems. The PIFs and RWR together collect the full costs associated with adding new developments
to the existing system. PIFs are reviewed annually with a full update to the PIF model being done every other
year before being brought to the City Council.
1 The Southside Ditches include the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and Warren
Lake Reservoir. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another canal that runs through Fort Collins and is
sometimes considered a Southside Ditch.
1
Packet Pg. 5
October 13, 2015 Page 4
How PIFs are determined depends on the amount of excess capacity in the utility infrastructure. If there is
sufficient excess capacity that new development will not require additional infrastructure, a “Buy-in” method is
utilized to set the PIFs. If there is no excess capacity so that new development will require additional capital
investment, an “incremental” or marginal method is appropriate. For a utility such as ours which has some
excess capacity but also needs to make some capital investments to meet the demands of the community at
build-out a combination or “Hybrid” of these two methods is utilized.
Next Steps
Staff will work with its consultants and the Districts (where appropriate) to study and consider changes to the
RWRs that include:
updating RWR calculations for the amount of water required and potential changes to the water supply factor,
potential RWR cash rate changes that incorporate the value of the Utilities’ existing water rights and facilities,
the cost of acquiring addition storage capacity and the market value of local water rights (Southside Ditches),
consideration of a cash-only RWR system.
It is anticipated that staff will return to City Council in the next several months with an update on these studies and
recommendations for potential changes to the Utilities RWR.
The first reading of the 2016 PIF ordinances will be considered on November 3, 2015. The ordinances will
include adding general plant resources required to effectively operate the administrative aspects of a utility in
addition to the plant infrastructure required to directly provide utility service to customers.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts (PDF)
2. Residential Raw Water Requirements Schedule (PDF)
3. Non-Residential Raw Water Requirement Schedule (PDF)
4. Water Plant Investment Fee Schedule (PDF)
5. Water Rights and Conversion Factors Accepted by the City for Satisfaction of Raw Water Requirements
(PDF)
6. Glossary of Water Resources Terms (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Effective January 1, 2015
CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
Single Family, Duplex & Multi-Family
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a reliable
source of supply in dry years. The Raw Water Requirement (RWR) formulas listed below include all
residential categories: single family, duplex and multi-family dwelling units. Irrigation taps needed for
common area greenbelts that are part of Single-Family developments are assessed water rights on a Non-
Residential basis by tap size (see Non-Residential RWR Schedule). Irrigation taps for common area
greenbelts of Multi-Family developments are not assessed additional water rights since water rights
collected for the buildings include the overall net acreage of the development which contain all lots,
spaces, private streets, parking and common areas.
When calculating the number of acre-feet of water needed to satisfy the Raw Water Requirement (RWR),
select the appropriate formula listed below. If the net acres are unknown, add the square footage of all
lots together and divide by 43,560, the number of square feet in an acre of land.
STANDARD RESIDENTIAL RWR FORMULA
RWR = Raw Water Requirement in acre-feet
Net Acres = Area of development in acres, excluding public street rights-of-way, city maintained
tracts and rights-of-way, ditches, railways or other areas typically maintained by persons other
than the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner.
RWR = 1.92 x [(.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres)]
When used for the following categories, the formula above can be simplified as shown:
Single Family: RWR = .3456 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
max. lot area 1/2 acre or 21,780 sq.ft.
Duplex: RWR = .6912 + (2.304 x Net Acres)
Multi-Family (3 units or more): RWR = (.3456 x No. of Units) + (2.304 x Net Acres)
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
x Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
x City of Fort Collins water certificates
x Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the Raw Water Requirement (RWR) is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions
are completed at the Utilities before a water service permit is issued. If satisfied with cash, payment is
made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance of a building permit.
1
Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-148 and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Residential Raw Water Requirements Schedule (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Effective: February 25, 2015
CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
NON-RESIDENTIAL RAW WATER REQUIREMENT (RWR) SCHEDULE
1
For Water Services Not Included in the Residential Category
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to ensure a
reliable source of supply in dry years. Non-residential service shall include without limitation all
commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing homes, fraternities, hotels, motels,
commonly owned areas, club houses, and pools.
The minimum Raw Water Requirement (RWR) for water services up to 2-inches in diameter is
shown below. The RWR for services 3-inch and larger are based on the applicant’s estimate of
actual use, provided that such estimate is first approved and accepted by the General Manager.
Options for satisfying the RWR include turning over water rights to the City in the form of water
stock or city water certificates, OR paying the equivalent cash-in-lieu-of amount.
Equivalent Cash Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Payment at Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) * $6,500/acre-foot (Gallons/Year)
3/4 0.90 or $ 5,850 293,270
1 3.00 or $ 19,500 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 or $ 39,000 1,955,110
2 9.60 or $ 62,400 3,128,170
3 and above Based on use
* acre-foot = 325,851 gallons of water
RWR MAY BE SATISFIED BY ANY ONE, OR COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
x Water rights (stock) acceptable to the City based on current conversion factors
x City of Fort Collins water certificates
x Cash at the rate of $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
If the RWR is satisfied with water stock or city water certificates, transactions are completed at
the Utilities before a water service permit is issued (refer to schedule of water rights and
conversion factors acceptable to the City). If the RWR is to be satisfied with cash, payment is
made at Neighborhood and Building Services upon issuance of a building permit.
ANNUAL ALLOTMENT/SURCHARGE (related to Monthly Billing)
The RWR establishes an annual gallon allotment for each tap and subsequent monthly water
account. A surcharge of $3.06 per 1,000 gallons will be assessed on a customer’s monthly water
bill when an account uses more water in a given calendar year than the gallons allotted for a
particular tap size. The surcharge rate is billed in addition to the customer’s regular monthly
tiered water rate. Once the annual allotment has been exceeded and the water surcharge appears
on an account, the surcharge will continue to be billed each month through the end of that
calendar year. Additional water stock, city certificates, or cash may be turned in to increase the
annual allotment.
1
Summarized from Sections 26-129, 26-149, and 26-150 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Non-Residential Raw Water Requirement Schedule (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Effective February 20, 2015
CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEE (PIF) SCHEDULE
1
The Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF) is a one-time development fee collected to pay for growth
related capital expansion costs of water supply, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution
facilities. The fee varies with the number of dwelling units and the lot area served for residential
users, and with the size of the water meter for non-residential users. City Code requires that each
building have its own water service tap. Payment of the PIF is made at Neighborhood and
Building Services upon issuance of a building permit.
RESIDENTIAL WATER PIF
2
: SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX & MULTI-FAMILY
Single Family (5/8 x 3/4" tap) $720 + $0.32 per sq.ft. of lot area = PIF
Duplex & Multi-Family $540 (per L.U.) + $0.25 per sq.ft. of lot area = PIF
*Water Meter – same as non-residential water meter prices listed below
Note: When calculating Water PIF’s for Multi-Family Subdivisions, net acreage of
the development is divided among the total number of living units to arrive at an
approximate lot size per living unit (L.U.).
NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER PIF
2
: COMMERCIAL & IRRIGATION
Water Meter Size Water PIF *Water Meter or Irrigation Meter
3/4" $ 7,000 $ 304.00 $ 304.00
1" $ 19,050 $ 362.00 $ 362.00
1-1/2" $ 41,600 $ 605.00 $ 757.00
2" $ 64,410 $ 668.00 $ 856.00
3" and above Based on peak day demand Buy from distributor Buy from distributor
Included in the meter charge is one trip for meter installation by the City. If more than one trip is
needed for meter installation, an additional charge will be billed.
IRRIGATION TAPS: Payment of Water PIF’s, along with satisfaction of the Raw Water
Requirement in Multi-Family developments, provides for one residential water tap per building,
and in addition, an adequate number of irrigation taps to serve common areas. Irrigation taps for
common areas in Single Family and Commercial developments pay the Non-Residential Water
PIF and Raw Water Requirement fees according to tap size. Irrigation taps 1-1/2 inch and larger
requiring turbine meters are billed meter charges indicated above.
TAP INSTALLATION: Water taps on all new water mains are to be installed by the
contractor. Taps on existing water mains may be installed by the City and will be billed on a
labor and material basis upon completion.
1
Summarized from Sections 26-120 & 26-128. Schedule C of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
2
Development review charges also apply
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Water Plant Investment Fee Schedule (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Effective January 1, 2015
CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
WATER RIGHTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY
FOR SATISFACTION OF RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS (RWR)
Arthur Irrigation Company (see Note) 3.442 Acre-Feet / Share
Larimer County Canal No. 2 (see Note) 42.687 Acre-Feet / Share
New Mercer Ditch Company (see Note) 30.236 Acre-Feet / Share
North Poudre Irrigation Company 5.00 Acre-Feet / Share
NCWCD Units (CBT – Colo. Big Thompson) 1.00 Acre-Feet / Unit (share)
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company 39.74 Acre-Feet / Share
Warren Lake Reservoir Company 10.00 Acre-Feet / Share
City of Fort Collins Water Certificates Face Value of Cert. (in acre-feet)
City of Fort Collins Josh Ames Certificates 0.5625 Acre-Feet per certificate or
each certificate can satisfy 1/8 acre
of land
Note:
The City does not accept treasury shares (inactive shares held by these companies) as of December 18, 1992. A
provision in the final decree of Water Court Case No. 92CW129 prohibits the City from acquiring such treasury
shares and using them for municipal purposes.
ATTACHMENT 5
1.5
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Water Rights and Conversion Factors Accepted by the City for Satisfaction of Raw Water Requirements (3632 : Water
1
Glossary of Water Resources Terms
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply
system; a drought is a period of below average runoff that can last one or more years and
is often measured by its duration, average annual shortage and cumulative deficit below
the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry period that is likely to occur, on
average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has several drought
periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts were
equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50
drought used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six
years long and has a cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual
river volumes that are about 70% of the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also
“Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one
acre-foot can supply around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year;
for storage comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000
acre-feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows
and releases that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which
is known as dead capacity)
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use
at a later time, most notably in following years
Change in Water Right - used to refer to changing water rights under Colorado water
law from agricultural to municipal water use; see also “Legal Return Flows or Return
Flow Obligations”
CIP - short for Capital Improvement Project, which typically refers to a project to
improve Utilities facilities (e.g., treatment plant capacity expansion)
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings
water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel
and the Big Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir;
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water); Fort
Collins Utilities currently owns 18,855 units of the 310,000 total units in the CBT project
Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) - volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic foot flowing every
second; for comparison, an average peak flow rate on the Poudre River at the Lincoln
Street gage (downtown) is around 1,900 cfs and a median winter-time low flow rate in
December at the same location is around 7 cfs
ATTACHMENT 6
1.6
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Glossary of Water Resources Terms (3632 : Water Development Fees)
2
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
DEIS or EIS - short for Draft Environmental Impact Statement; a report detailing the
findings of the NEPA permitting process; report can be reviewed by public for their
comments which are typically addressed in a Final Environment Impact Statement; see
also “NEPA”
ELCO - short for East Larimer County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
FCLWD - short for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands
through a series of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to
meet the planning demand level and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year
drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion”, “planning demand level”
and “storage reserve factor”
GMA - short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City
of Fort Collins’ future City limits
gpcd - short for gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the
Fort Collins Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced
at the Water Treatment Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large
contractual customers and other sales or exchange agreements) divided by the estimated
population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365 days
LEDPA - short for Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is
what is allowed to be permitted through the NEPA permitting process; see also “NEPA”
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
NEPA - short for National Environmental Policy Act; federal legislation that established
environmental policy for the nation; it provides interdisciplinary framework for federal
agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains “action-forcing” procedures to
ensure that federal agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account
NISP - short for Northern Integrated Supply Project
1.6
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Glossary of Water Resources Terms (3632 : Water Development Fees)
3
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD); Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is
involved in several other regional water projects on behalf of their participants; see also
“Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - short for North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies
water to farmers north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in
Halligan Reservoir; the City currently owns about 36% of the shares in the company
NWCWD - short for North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply
planning purposes that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or
facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
PIF (or PIFs) - short for Plant Investment Fee(s), which are one-time fees assessed on
developments for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve that development
RWR - short for Raw Water Requirements, which requires new development to turn in
water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to support the water needs of that
development; cash is used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage capacity)
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having
20 percent of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to
about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 month of summer demands
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or
priority system, which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees
(senior rights) will get their water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water,
often described as “first in time, first in right”
Southside Ditches - refers to the irrigation ditches that run through the City of Fort
Collins, including the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
Warren Lake Reservoir; the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal is another ditch that runs
through Fort Collins and is sometimes considered a Southside Ditch
Tri-Districts - the combination of the three regional water districts East Larimer County
(ELCO), Fort Collins-Loveland (FCLWD) and North Weld County (NWCWD) Water
Districts; these districts share the same water treatment plant called Soldier Canyon Filter
Plant, which is located adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically
includes water for direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins
1.6
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Glossary of Water Resources Terms (3632 : Water Development Fees)
4
Utilities, includes City owned water rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural
rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and ownership in the CBT project
Water Supply Factor - refers to a multiplying factor used in the assessment of raw water
required by developers to reflect issues that tend to reduce the average yield of the water
supplies provided to a water supplier (e.g., system losses, variable demands, etc.)
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy, which provides Fort
Collins Utilities guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a
water right; the yield of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of
water available (i.e., low or high river runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also
“Firm Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”
1.6
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Glossary of Water Resources Terms (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Water Development Fees
City Council Work Session
October 13, 2015
1
ATTACHMENT 7
1.7
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Water Supply Discussion Timeline
May 12 - City Council Work Session
Water Supply Reliability
and Storage Update
PURPOSE:
- Background on the water
supply planning policies
and processes.
- Update on activities
related to water storage and
reliability.
June 8 - Futures Committee
Water Supply Planning
Policy
PURPOSE:
- History, present, and
future options;
July 14 - City Council Work Session
Water Supply Planning
Policy
PURPOSE:
- History, present, and
future options
Oct. 13 - City Council
Work Session
Water Development Fees
PURPOSE:
Review Raw Water
Requirements and Plant
Investment Fees for new
development; compare with
requirements in surrounding
water districts; consider
potential changes to
Utilities’ requirements.
2
1.7
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Overview
• Update: Water Supply Planning in GMA
• Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
• Plant Investment Fee (PIF)
• Next Steps
3
1.7
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Water Supply
Planning in GMA Update
• July 14 Direction: explore similar water supply policies with
Districts; consider risks to Utilities
• Districts have agreed to consider/collaborate on:
• Addressing water supply for Affordable Housing
• Studying consistent water requirement methodologies (met
on October 2)
• Establishing consistent conservation programs
• September 1 Council Direction: Scoping for a regional water
authority
4
1.7
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
5
This work session focuses
on Utilities water service
area; will continue working
with Districts.
1.7
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Direction Sought
What questions or feedback does Council have regarding
the Utilities’ water development fees?
6
1.7
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Water Development Fees: General
• Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
• Dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu to
ensure adequate supply for new development
• Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
• One-time fees for cost of utility infrastructure
needed to serve a new development
• Utilities’ fees reflect lot size and development type
(e.g., residential, commercial, etc.)
7
1.7
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Determining Raw
Water Requirements (RWR)
1. Determine future water supply needs (rights/facilities)
• Water Supply & Demand Management Policy
- Policy criteria applied to projected growth
2. Consider water rights and/or facilities needed
• Incorporate existing supplies/facilities
3. Adjust RWR to acquire necessary supplies (or cash
equivalent)
• Consider new name: Water Supply Requirements
8
1.7
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Utilities: Future
Water Supply Needs
• Population: ~133,000 (2015)
~178,000 (2065)
• Large contractual use increases
• Breweries, manufacturing
• 2065 supply needs: ~38,400 acre-feet/year
• Existing firm yield: ~31,000 acre-feet/year
• Need additional: ~7,400 acre-feet/year
9
1.7
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
• Storage: Halligan Water Supply Project
• Permitting process may result in a more
expensive alternative
• Long-term: some additional water rights
• Not as effective without storage
• Long-term: some additional raw water (operational)
storage
• Similar to Rigden Reservoir
10
Utilities: Meeting
Water Supply Needs
1.7
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Current
Residential RWR Schedule
RWR (acre-feet) = 1.92 * [(0.18 * # of units) + (1.2 * net acres)]
11
Water Supply
Factor
Indoor Use
Component
Outdoor Use
Component
These values need updating to consider lower
use; being studied with Districts.
1.7
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
• Based on average use of meter size; includes Water Supply Factor
• Values need updating to consider lower use
Minimum
Meter Size Minimum RWR Annual Allotment
(inches) (acre-feet) (gallons/year)
3/4 0.90 293,270
1 3.00 977,550
1-1/2 6.00 1,955,110
2 9.60 3,128,170
3 and above based on projected used
12
Current
Commercial RWR Schedule
1.7
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Water Supply Factor
• Currently 1.92 and considers:
• System losses (treatment and distribution)
• Varying demands (more use in hot/dry years)
• Varying supplies (e.g., less yield in droughts)
• Different supply sources (some yield better)
• Storage not considered in water supply factor
• Storage can use existing water rights to increase
firm yield
13
1.7
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Current Satisfaction of RWR
• RWR can be met with combination of:
• Acceptable water rights
• Cash in-lieu-of water rights
14
1.7
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Diminished Yield of Water Rights
• Utilities has acquired many rights over time
• Most yield in summer months only
- Yields are in excess of demands
• Additional water rights (without storage) do little to
increase firm yield
• Partial reason for discontinuing water banking
• Should consider cash only to focus on acquiring storage
• Can still purchase rights, once storage is acquired
15
Flow
Month
1.7
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
16
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Amount (Acre-Feet)
Fort Collins Utilities Water Supplies and Demands:
Effect of Adding Water Rights
Southside Ditch Supplies
Other Direct Flow Rights
Future Demand
1.7
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Amount (Acre-Feet)
Fort Collins Utilities Water Supplies and Demands:
Effect of Adding Water Rights
Additional Southside Ditch Supplies
Southside Ditch Supplies
Other Direct Flow Rights
Future Demand
17
Only small amount
usable without storage.
1.7
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
RWR Cash In-Lieu-Of Rate
• Impact fee (based on needs, not just market values)
• Currently $6,500 per acre-foot of RWR
• Previously considered:
• CBT units & local water right costs; mix of rights and cash
• Future potential considerations:
• Cost to acquire additional storage capacity
• Value of existing water rights and facilities
• Cash value equation that can be updated regularly
• Basis for excess water use surcharge
18
1.7
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Market Value of Colorado-
Big Thompson (CBT) Project Units
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Year
Price per Unit for Colorado-Big Thompson Project Units
Data provided by Northern Water. 19
1.7
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
What are PIFs?
• Development fee (how growth pays its own way)
• Impact fee (how ratepayers are made whole)
How are they set?
• Buy-in
• Incremental
• Hybrid (Utilities method)
When are they adjusted?
• Reviewed annually; Council biennally
20
1.7
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
21
Value of current
infrastructure
Value of new
infrastructure
Capacity of
existing
infrastructure
Capacity of new
infrastructure
Next Steps
• November 3 and 17: 2016 PIF ordinances
• Next few months: Regional Water Authority scoping
• November 1: Initial scoping memo
• Next several months:
• Study/update RWR calculations (with Districts)
• Study/update RWR cash rate
• Return to Council for potential RWR changes
22
1.7
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Direction Sought
What questions or feedback does Council have regarding
the Utilities’ water development fees?
23
1.7
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
Thank You
24
1.7
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3632 : Water Development Fees)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Ditch and Reservoir Companies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback from City Council regarding opportunities for the development of a
broader master plan for ditches in the City. Staff will provide general information on ditch companies operating in
Fort Collins and seek feedback regarding a summary of the findings of a ditch company Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Staff will also provide an update on progress related to Budgeting
For Outcomes (BFO) Offer 130.1, “Arthur Ditch Master Plan and Alternative Analysis”.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What input does City Council have on the ditch company SWOT analysis conducted by City staff?
2. Does City Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes related to ditches operating in and
around the community?
3. What other feedback does City Council have regarding the information presented?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In the 2015/2016 Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) process, City Council approved BFO Offer 130.1 related to the
Scoping of a Ditch Master Plan and Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis. This offer included the commitment to
develop a scope for a master plan for ditches in the City. The project included a commitment to develop a
baseline assessment of the business needs of the subject ditch companies as well as the opportunities to
preserve and enhance the values and community safety needs associated with ditches. (Some of the subject
ditch companies also operate reservoirs, and may thus be described as “ditch and reservoir” companies.
However, these materials refer to all companies as “ditch companies.”) This discussion will provide Council with
an understanding of the history, functions and business needs of ditch companies. It will also provide information
related to a SWOT analysis conducted by City staff and articulate next steps related to ditch companies.
History of Area Irrigation Ditches
Ditch companies (also known as canal, irrigation, irrigating, or reservoir companies) generally formed in the late
1800s and early 1900s for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating, ditch systems to transport
water, generally for irrigation. Early farmers realized they needed to construct and maintain longer canals and
storage reservoirs to irrigate land farther from the river. They pooled their resources, forming the first ditch
companies in and around Fort Collins. Numerous ditch companies were established around the turn of the
century, including the Water Supply and Storage Company, the North Poudre Irrigation Company, the Larimer
County Canal #2 Irrigating Company, and the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company. These and other ditch
systems helped make irrigation possible and served as an economic catalyst for development in northern
Colorado. Today, there are nineteen ditch companies operating within the City’s Growth Management Area
(GMA) boundary. A map of local ditches is attached (Attachment 1).
2
Packet Pg. 40
October 13, 2015 Page 2
City Acquisition of Ditch Company Shares
The City’s first municipal water supply was provided by the Fort Collins Irrigation Canal, later called the Town
Ditch, and presently, the Arthur Ditch. In 1882, Fort Collins built their first water treatment plant on the City Ditch,
now known as part of Larimer Canal No. 2. As the City continued to develop and the need for municipal supplies
increased, the City began acquiring ditch company shares with the intention of converting those shares for
municipal use. The City’s Water Utility began acquiring ditch company shares in the 1960s through its raw water
dedication requirements for new development with the intent that most of the irrigation water would be converted
to municipal use. The Water Utility now holds considerable stock in a number of ditch companies and share
ownership continues to increase through raw water dedication. Other City departments, primarily Parks, Golf, and
Natural Areas, have also acquired ditch company shares, to meet their raw water needs. The City currently owns
shares in sixteen ditch companies with majority share ownership in five of those companies. A chart showing the
current share ownership in local ditch companies is attached (Attachment 2).
Ditch Company Structure and Operations
Each ditch company is unique, based on its ditch system, the specific laws under which it was formed, the policies
it has adopted and employs, and its history. For instance, some ditch companies operate a single ditch, whereas
others operate vast ditch systems with numerous ditches, reservoirs, and laterals; some were formed in the late
1800s under certain laws, whereas others were formed later after the State of Colorado Legislature passed
different corporate statues; some have detailed written policies and rules and regulations, whereas others operate
more informally; and many have been the subject of various issues over their existence that have shaped the
current form. Generalizations about ditch companies should thus always be understood with the caveat that any
particular issue must be considered in light of the specific company involved. With that said, the following is
generally true regarding ditch companies.
Ditch Company Structure and Corporate Operations
Ditch companies operate as private special purpose corporations formed under various State of Colorado
corporation laws. A person or entity becomes a shareholder in a ditch company by purchasing stock, which
provides the holder with a pro rata interest in the ditch company’s assets (including the water rights) and rights to
certain services of the organization, such as the delivery of water and the use of structures maintained by the
company. Shareholders thus have property rights in the water and the assets of the ditch company.
Ditch companies are typically managed by an elected board of directors. Directors are typically elected from the
shareholders. Their duties are defined in the company’s bylaws and are also governed, to some extent, by the
State of Colorado’s corporation laws. Bylaws usually require directors to perform their duties in a manner the
director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the company, which is generally consistent with the
State of Colorado’s laws. A ditch company manager and other employees usually manage the day-to-day
operations of the company. Most companies employee one or more ditch riders, who ensure the physical
maintenance of the ditch and diversion structures and open and close head gates during the diversion season.
Several City employees serve on a ditch company Board of Directors. A list of board members is attached
[ATTACHMENT 2].
Ditch company shareholders must pay annual assessments, which help pay for construction, operation, and
maintenance of ditch company assets. Assessments are set annually and are levied through a shareholder
majority vote. In return for annual assessment fees, shareholders receive their share of the water and proportional
voting rights. The City currently pays over $1 million in annual assessments on its approximately 5800 shares of
ditch company stock. A list of annual assessment fees is attached (Attachment 3).
Ditch Company Water Rights and Water Deliveries
Ditch companies operate under Colorado water law and the prior appropriation doctrine. The companies hold the
water rights and are the appropriators of water from the streams. Each company determines the amount of water
that can be diverted from the river in a given year. The company water is then divided among the shareholders
based on their ownership of the company. The share deliveries can be allocated based on volume or based on
flow.
2
Packet Pg. 41
October 13, 2015 Page 3
The allocation of water per share in the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) system is determined each
season by the board of directors and is typically based on the water supply outlook for the upcoming irrigation
season. Factors such as snowpack, current reservoir levels, and climate predictions are considered when setting
the annual allotment of water per share. Estimates are usually conservative so NPIC can be certain it can deliver
the amount of water anticipated, however allocations may be increased as the season progresses.
The City currently bases its water rights conversion factors for satisfaction of raw water requirements (RWR) on
the City’s analysis of average yields per ditch company share. A list of the average yield per ditch company share
and the total average yield is attached [ATTACHMENT 4].
The City does make some of its ditch company shares and water available for seasonal rental for use by local
farmers. This is in part due to legal constraints, which require that the water be used on land served by a given
ditch company system unless otherwise changed by a court decree. In addition, in average and wet years, the
City may have excess water after its treated and raw water demands have been met. In most years there is
excess water that can be rented to other water users. The City’s rental rates are set annually by City Council.
City/Ditch Company Relationship
The City’s relationship with local ditch companies is important because it impacts not only our local water supply,
but achievement of other City objectives, primarily the sense of place and outdoor environment in our community.
The City and these local ditch companies are mutually dependent. The City’s significant ownership in ditch
companies funds, through assessments, much of the maintenance and repair of the ditch systems in the
community. In addition, the Water Utility’s surplus raw water rental program supports local farmers, the majority of
which are located outside of the city.
The City relies on the ditch companies as well. Ditches and associated reservoirs support City strategic
objectives; including meeting the community’s water supply needs, providing opportunities for nature in the City,
supporting open spaces, and providing recreational opportunities for citizens. This diversity of needs now met by
ditches has increased the complexity and level of conflict regarding how ditches and ditch companies operate.
This is further complicated by the fact that many ditch companies exist for the limited purpose of delivering water
to shareholders, and ditch companies often only meet the City’s strategic objectives as an incident to the ditch
company’s purpose of water delivery.
SWOT Analysis
City staff recently conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis in effort to
explore the relationship between the City and ditch companies. A SWOT matrix is attached (Attachment 5).
The following are some key highlights from the SWOT analysis:
Strengths/Opportunities
Ditch company water is an important water source for meeting the City’s current and future water needs.
Ditch company assets serve as community amenities and may be leveraged to meet multiple community
interests.
Significant share ownership and representation on many ditch company boards provides the City an
opportunity to influence, but not dictate ditch company operations and policies.
Ditch company board representatives play a key role in communicating City interests to ditch companies.
Significant opportunities exist to improve communications between ditch companies and the City.
Opportunities exist to partner with ditch companies and State agencies to improve instream flows, create
wildlife habitat, and modify diversion structures to improve fish passage.
Opportunities exist to leverage current collaborative efforts. For example the City’s Stormwater Utility partners
with ditch companies to clean debris from headgates along the river and from ditches on City property to
mitigate flooding hazards.
2
Packet Pg. 42
October 13, 2015 Page 4
Weaknesses/Threats
Boards function so that one board member equals one vote, not based on percentage of share ownership. In
addition, bylaws and Colorado law require board members to represent the interests of the company as
whole, not individual interests. Citizens may not understand the complexity of this relationship.
What is in the best interest of all shareholders of a ditch company may be in conflict with or compete with
other varied City interests. For example, while tree removal along a ditch or reservoir may reduce water loss
in the ditch, it also conflicts with community values regarding adequate tree canopy and wildlife habitat.
Ditch companies may see the City as acting in its own best interests and not in the best interests of all
shareholders, creating distrust among parties and inhibiting a willingness to form partnerships.
Ditches and their associated activities are exempt from Land Use Code requirements, thus limiting the City’s
land use authority over ditches.
The purchase of ditch shares by other water providers may remove water from ditches that support the City’s
interests.
Preferred Outcomes
As part of the SWOT analysis, staff identified preferred outcomes. These outcomes may serve as a starting point
for future discussions regarding development of
The City collaborates with ditch companies to effectively communicate issues/activities that are of community
interest and concern and maintains good relationships with ditch company boards and shareholders.
There is safe and compatible use of ditch company assets for both citizens and shareholders.
Ditch companies and their shareholders recognize ditches as a community asset and the multiple values they
serve.
Ditch company assets provide increased recreational opportunities and connectivity for wildlife and citizens.
Maintenance responsibilities are clearly delineated and do not impair the ability to meet other City objectives.
The City engages in the proper analysis of risks and liabilities in order to make informed decisions managing
the costs of achieving identified outcomes and objectives.
A valuation study may demonstrate the City’s return on investment for investing in the ditch system.
Identify and deliver minimum flows through key designated instream flow reaches through town.
Develop key partnerships that lead to creating value for all stakeholders and to address issues of mutual
concern.
Maintain a balance between a diversity of needs.
ARTHUR DITCH ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis is to evaluate short and long-term courses of action for
maintenance of the Arthur Ditch from Wood Street to Laurel Street. A map of Arthur Ditch is attached
(Attachment 6).
The Arthur Ditch was put underground in a concrete culvert through Fort Collins from Wood Street to Laurel
Street around 1933. The culvert passes through approximately 67 private properties and crosses the right-of-way
in 26 separate locations. The City has responsibility for the right-of-way crossings and, due to the age and
condition of the structure; many of these have been replaced recently.
Desired outcomes from the Analysis include: clarifying future City responsibilities; increased understanding of the
location and condition of the structure; development of a long-term plan to maintain the facility.
The City will begin the process of hiring a consultant in the 4th quarter of 2015 with the study to be completed in
2016.
2
Packet Pg. 43
October 13, 2015 Page 5
NEXT STEPS
Staff will review the preferred outcomes generated by the SWOT analysis as well as input from City Council and
assess both the feasibility and impact of related actions. This assessment will be the basis of future discussion
and the foundation for future policy development and master planning related to ditches.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Local Irrigation Canals Map (PDF)
2. City Ownership and Board Representation (PDF)
3. Ditch Company Annual Assessments (PDF)
4. Ditch Company Average Yield per share (PDF)
5. Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (PDF)
6. Arthur Ditch Map (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 44
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Boyd Lake
Horsetooth Reservoir
Terry Lake
Long Pond
Fossil Creek Reservoir
North Poudre Res No 6
Cobb Lake
Windsor Reservoir
Annex No 8
Cache La Poudre River
Rocky Ridge Lake
Warren Lake
Curtis Lake
Water Supply Res No 2 & 3
Donath Lake
Kluver Reservoir
Elder Reservoir
Seaman Reservoir
Lindenmeier Lake
Claymore Lake
College Lake
Richard's Lake
Kitchel Lake
Duck Lake
Timnath Reservior
Water Supply Res No 4
Dixon Reservoir
Lake Sherwood
Robert Benson Lake
Mountain Supply Reservoir No 9
Parkwood Lake
Mountain Supply Res No 10
Lee Lake
City Park Lake
Portner Reservoir
Harmony Reservoir
/
Fort Collins Area Irrigation Canals
Legend
City Limits
GMA
Area Streets
Ditches
Arthur Canal
ATTACHMENT 2: CITY OWNERSHIP AND BOARD REPRESENTATION
DITCH COMPANY*
ACTIVE
COMPANY
SHARES
TOTAL
CITY
SHARES
PERCENTAGE
OWNED BY
CITY
BOARD
REPRESENTATION
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 10000 3563.75 35.6% Carol Webb
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 255 195.343 76.6% Bill Whirty
Trilby Lateral 18 6.333 35.2% None
Arthur Irrigation Co. 1496.945 657.2458 43.9% Mark Taylor
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 146.5068 104.2117 71.1%
Mike Calhoon
Doug Jardine
Donnie Dustin
New Mercer Ditch Co. 141.3015 78.78075 55.8% Mike Calhoon
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 225 167.975 74.7%
Mike Calhoon
Doug Jardine
Donnie Dustin
Sherwood Reservoir Co. 470 82 17.4% Mark Taylor
Sherwood Irrigation Co. 11.70671 2.695 23.0% Mark Taylor
Water Supply and Storage
Co. 594.4 26.667 4.5%
None
Box Elder Ditch Co. 64 5 7.8% None
Louden Irrigating Canal
and Reservoir Co. 600 3.75 0.6% None
North Louden Ditch and
Reservoir Co. 20.12 3.75 18.6% None
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. 259.5 5.5 2.1% None
Sand Dike Ditch 26.5 6 22.6% None
Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Co. 1419 1 0.1% None
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co. 69.375 0.0625 0.1% None
Dixon Canyon Reservoir
Co. 1000 830 83.0%
Mike Calhoon
Rick Jordan
Buckhorn Highline Ditch 180 29 16.1% None
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
(CBT) Project water, or 6.1% of the total 310,000 CBT project shares.
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City Ownership and Board Representation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
ATTACHMENT 3: DITCH COMPANY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FEES
DITCH COMPANY*
TOTAL CITY
SHARES
2015
ASSESSMENT/
SHARE
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT FEE
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 3563.75 $200 $712,750
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 195.343 $185 $36,138
Trilby Lateral 6.333 $250 $1,583
Arthur Irrigation Co. 657.2458 $20 $13,145
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 104.2117 $350 $36,474
New Mercer Ditch Co. 78.78075 $450 $35,451
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 167.975 $500 $83,988
Sherwood Reservoir Co. 82 $160 $13,120
Sherwood Irrigation Co. 2.695 $1500 $4,043
Water Supply and Storage
Co. 26.667 $2900 $77,334
Box Elder Ditch Co. 5 $350 $1,750
Louden Irrigating Canal
and Reservoir Co. 3.75 $310 $1,163
North Louden Ditch and
Reservoir Co. 3.75 $200 $750
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. 5.5 $300 $1,650
Sand Dike Ditch 6 $180 $1,080
Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Co. 1 $350 $350
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co. 0.0625 $100 $6
Dixon Canyon Reservoir
Co. 830 $10 $8,300
Buckhorn Highline Ditch 29 $15 $435
TOTAL ASSESSMENT FEES $1,029,510
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
(CBT) Project water, or 6.1% of the total 310,000 CBT project shares. The 2015 assessment on CBT
shares was $21.46 (weighted). The total 2015 assessment fee for CBT was $404,628.
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Ditch Company Annual Assessments (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
ATTACHMENT 4: DITCH COMPANY RAW WATER YIELD – WATER SUPPLY
DITCH COMPANY*
TOTAL CITY
SHARES
AVERAGE ACRE-
FEET/SHARE TOTAL ACRE-FEET
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 3563.75 5.00 17819
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 195.343 39.74 7763
Arthur Irrigation Co. 657.2458 3.442 2262
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 104.2117 42.687 4448
New Mercer Ditch Co. 78.78075 30.236 2382
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 167.975 10.00 1680
AVERAGE ANNUAL ACRE-FEET YIELD 36354 AF
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
Project water, which yield on average a total of 13,199 acre-feet, or 0.7 acre-fee per CBT unit.
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Ditch Company Average Yield per share (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
ATTACHMENT 5 – DITCH COMPANY SWOT ANALYSIS
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
Ditch Company
Communications:
Communications between the
City and Ditch companies
generally do not meet the needs
of City Leadership
Holding majority shares gives
City an ability to influence how
the Board communicates key
issues.
Many boards meet only
once per year, thus limiting
timely communication of
key issues.
Limited financial and
human resources of ditch
companies
Representation on Ditch Boards
provides an opportunity to share key
issues with City Leadership.
The City has significant resources that
may be leveraged to assist ditch
companies with implementing better
communication tools.
Ditch companies may see the City has
acting in its own best interests and not in
the best interests of all shareholders,
creating a desire to withhold information.
Political astuteness of current ditch board
members
The City collaborates with ditch
companies to effectively
communicate issues/activities that
are of community interest and
concern.
City reps on ditch company boards
are provided with a clear
communication process
Resources to develop a
communication process for ditch
board members.
Resources to offer to ditch boards
to facilitate better and timely
communication.
Water Supply:
Ditch company water is an
important water source for the
Utilities' treated water
customers, as well as the City's
parks, golf courses, schools,
homeowners associations (HOAs)
and some local businesses.
Utilities has obtained several
water rights decrees allowing
for the diversion of irrigation
share water for treatment and
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
Company Assets:
Is there a way to provide
additional recreational activities
in the City utilizing ditch and
reservoir assets, including trails
and connectivity?
through town, typically
bordered by an access road.
Ditches and reservoirs
contribute to a sense of place
and support Nature in the City.
Ditches and access road
increase connectivity between
natural features and parks.
restrict use of ditches and
access roads for recreational
use.
The City may have to pay
carriage and maintenance
costs if the City is receiving
a benefit from ditch
company assets.
Surface rights can be leased for
reservoirs.
Partner opportunities may be available
with ditch companies and Parks and
Wildlife.
liability issues for the ditch company.
Water quality issues may impair public
uses.
Increased recreational opportunities
and connectivity for citizens
Safe and compatible use of ditch
company assets
Add to the City’s trail inventory
Staff time to research appropriate
sites.
Staff/attorney time to draft and
negotiate agreements
Property Issues:
Several areas throughout town
don't have any record of
property owners along the length
of the ditches
Property is potentially available
for use by the City.
No knowledge of where
ownership lies
Such lands could be used for
recreational trails and Nature in the
City connectivity
Staff has knowledge of existing hazards in
these areas that are a liability.
Enhanced safety compared to
current conditions.
Determine which party retains
maintenance responsibilities.
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
such as roads)
Instream Flow:
Ditch diversions reduce flows in
the river within the urban reach
and ditch diversion structures
create barriers to aquatic species,
The protection of minimum
flows, especially during critical
periods of the year is key to
sustaining a healthy and vibrant
river corridor through the City.
Key diversion structures and
seasonal dry-up/low flow
points have already been
identified.
Engineering firm is under
contract to design preliminary
structural modifications.
NAD and Colorado Water
Trust are developing a
partnership to engage ditch
companies and
fund structural modifications
Ditch diversions create low
flow and dry-up points
within the river, and impede
recreation activities.
Opportunities exist to collaborate with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and
Colorado Water Conservation Board to
identify an instream flow reach through
Fort Collins.
Work within the conservation,
agriculture, and water community to
identify opportunities to deliver water
through sharing agreements,
modifications to diversion operations,
and water delivery agreements.
Identify potential modifications to
diversion structures that allow for fish
and flows to bypass and allow for water
measurement past the structure.
No unappropriated water remains for an
instream flow appropriation.
Ditch companies are not obligated to work
with the City. All efforts will be incentive
based and cannot injure ditch companies or
their associated water rights.
Long term effort that may take several
years to accomplish goals.
Identify and deliver minimum
flows through key designated
instream flow reaches through
town.
Modify diversion structures from
the Canyon mouth to 1-25 to allow
fish and water to bypass the
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
limited available
conveyance for storm runoff
when storm events occur.
cause water quality issues
2.5
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Arthur Ditch
Wood St
S Shields St
Laporte Ave
SCollegeAve
N Howes St
N College
A
ve
W Laurel St
E Mountain Ave
E Vine Dr
E Mulberry St
S Mason St
W Mountain Ave
W Mulberry St
N Mason St
Jefferson St
S Howes St
W Vine Dr
N Shields St
Remington St
³I
City of Fort Collins
Arthur Ditch
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
³ Feet
ATTACHMENT 6
2.6
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Arthur Ditch Map (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
1
Ditch and Reservoir Companies
Carol A. Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
5-24-15
ATTACHMENT 7
2.7
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Ditches Discussion Timeline
2
Council
expresses
interest in
more
information
on ditches
2013
Council approves
2015/2016 BFO
Offer 130.1 –
Ditches Master
Plan and Arthur
Ditch Alternatives
Analysis
2014 2015
Jan 2014 -
Realignment of
ditch board
representatives
Staff conducts
ditches SWOT
analysis
2016
Jan/Feb -
ditch
Company
annual
meetings/
board
elections
2017
Oct. 2015
Council
Work
Session
Future Council
discussions
Complete
Arthur
Ditch
analysis
2.7
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Direction Sought
1. Does Council have input on the ditch company SWOT* analysis?
2. Does Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes
related to ditches operating in and around the community?
3. What other feedback does Council have regarding the information
presented?
SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
3
2.7
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Presentation Agenda
• Ditch Company 101
• City/Ditch Company
Relationship
• SWOT Analysis
• Arthur Ditch Alternatives
Analysis
• Preferred Outcomes
4
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
2.7
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Ditch Company History
• Formed in late
1800s/early 1900s
• Primary function – deliver
water for irrigation
• Catalyst for economic
growth
5
Irrigation Ditch Construction – Photo courtesy of Colorado State
University; Ralph L. Parshall Collection, Water Resources Archive.
2.7
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Ditch Company Structure
• Private special purpose
corporations
• Shareholders
• Pro rata interest
• Proportional voting
rights
• Board of Directors
• Manager/Employees
6
Larimer Canal No. 2
2.7
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Ditch Company Water Rights
• Operate under Colorado Water
Law
• Ditch companies hold water rights
• Water divided based on number
of shares owned
7
Reservoir Ridge Natural Area
2.7
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
City Water Supply and Ditches
• Fort Collins Irrigation Canal “Town
Ditch” = City’s first water supply
• 1882
• First Water Treatment Plant on
City Ditch
• 1960s - present
• Acquisition of ditch shares
through raw water dedication
• Conversion to municipal use
8
Fort Collins Water Works, 1909. Photo courtesy of Fort
Collins Local History Archive.
2.7
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Ditches in Fort Collins Today
• 19 ditch companies operating in GMA
• City owns about 5800 shares of stock in 19
companies (16 in GMA)
• Utilities, Parks, Golf, and Natural
Areas
• Majority shares in 5 companies
• Board representation for 9 companies
• Over $1 million in annual
assessments in 2015
9
2.7
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
10
2.7
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
City/Ditch Company Relationship
• City owns considerable shares
• Funds operations
• Surplus water for rental
• Board representation
• Ditch companies
• Deliver water to meet City
needs
• Support City strategic
objectives
• Mutual purpose vs. competing
interests
11
Warren Lake
2.7
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
SWOT Analysis
Raw water resource
Share ownership
Board representation
Community interests
Existing partnerships
Primary purpose vs.
coincidental benefits
Competing interests
Lack of trust
Limited land use
authority
Safety
12
2.7
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis
• Arthur Ditch was put underground in the 1930s from Wood Street to
Laurel
• Condition has rapidly deteriorated recently @ right of way crossings
• Collaborative Project will:
• Identify responsibilities and challenges with the facility
• Ensure that future projects are aligned
• Completed in 2016
• Outcome will likely result in 2017-18 BFO offers
13
2.7
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Preferred Outcomes
Safe and
Compatible
Use
Recreation and
Connectivity
Roles and
Responsibilities
Risks/Liabilities
Analysis
Partnerships Balance
Diverse Needs
14
Fossil Creek Park
2.7
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Next Steps
• Frame SWOT analysis in terms of feasibility/impact
• Engage Council in future discussions
• Continue to develop and evolve policy related to ditches
• Goal = strategic, purposeful approach
15
2.7
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Direction Sought
1. Does Council have input on the ditch company SWOT* analysis?
2. Does Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes
related to ditches operating in and around the community?
3. What other feedback does Council have regarding the information
presented?
SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
16
2.7
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
17
Rigden Reservoir Questions?
2.7
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
Lisa Rosintoski, Utility Customer Connections Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Efficiency Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session item is to present the draft of the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan update for
feedback Council consideration of adoption. The Utilities Water Conservation Team, along with input from the
Water Board and various City staff, has developed the draft Water Efficiency Plan update for Council
consideration. The draft plan, if adopted, will replace the current 2010 Water Conservation Plan. The Plan
provides goals, objectives, and implementation principles that will guide activities undertaken by the Water
Conservation Team as part of the Budget for Outcomes (BFO) process. The proposed Plan aims to support and
promote the conservation ethic of Fort Collins and ensure the efficient and beneficial use of our water resources
in support of the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy.
The State of Colorado Water Conservation Act of 2004 (House Bill 04-1365) requires entities that provide retail
water and have total annual demands of 2,000 acre-feet or more to submit an updated Water Efficiency Plan at
least every seven years to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). An entity’s plan is required to
include sections on water supplies, historic water demands and demand management activities, the planning
process and goals, selection of activities, implementation and monitoring, and adoption and approval.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have specific feedback with regards to the Water Efficiency Plan goals and objectives?
2. Is Council ready to consider adoption of the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan by resolution in early spring 2016?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The history of formal water conservation in the Utilities dates to 1977 with the creation of a part-time water
conservation officer. The first Water Supply Policy was developed in 1988 and dictated that “water conservation
education programs be continued and enhanced to as to encourage efficiency water use.” In 1992 a dedicated
Water Demand Policy was adopted by City Council; this Policy outlined 12 key measures to guide the expansion
of the water conservation program. The first combined Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP)
was created in 2003 and most recently updated in 2012. In response to the 2004 Water Conservation Act, the first
formal Water Conservation Plan was developed and approved by the CWCB in 2010. This proposed Plan is an
update to the 2010 Plan, with a wording switch from “Conservation” to “Efficiency” to reflect changes at the state
level.
Currently, the 2012 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Policy) sets a planning demand level for
determining supply system needs. This Policy then defers to the Plan for the conservation goal. The current
planning demand level is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), and the 2010 Water Conservation Plan set a
conservation goal of 140 gpcd by 2020. Note that the planning demand level is purposely set higher than the
conservation goal to account for inherent uncertainties in water supplies and to ensure a certain level of system
reliability. The City of Fort Collins Utilities does not provide water service to all customers within the city limits, nor
the growth management area. There are a number of water districts such as East Larimer County Water District
and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District that provide service to a portion of Fort Collins’ residents and
3
Packet Pg. 71
October 13, 2015 Page 2
businesses. Utilities currently provides some water conservation programs to residents in the water districts and
hope to expand these offerings and partnership in the future.
The Water Efficiency Plan includes the following chapters, with key features noted (Attachment 1):
1. Profile of Existing Water Supply System
2. Profile of Water Demand and Historical Demand Management
3. Integrated Water Supply and Demand Management Planning
4. Selection of Water Efficiency Activities
5. Implementation and Monitoring
Key elements of the Plan update include:
Goal: The overarching goal is proposed to change from 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by the year
2020, to a goal of 130 gallons per capita per day by the year 2030. This reflects a reasonable and achievable
goal, given the current trend in gpcd supported by the City’s water conservation programs. As per CWCB
requirements, this Plan will be updated at least every 7 years and thus the 2030 goal serves as a guide post,
as did the previous Plans’ goals.
Areas of Opportunity: A new addition in the Plan is the identification of areas of opportunity for expansion of
Utilities’ water conservation program. These were selected for their significant water savings potential, the
potential scope of customer impact, and in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan Outcomes and Strategic
Objectives. These areas will be used to guide the expansion and direction of current programs and will also
be used to develop new programs and activities. The objectives are to (1) leverage Advanced Meter Fort
Collins system capabilities and data, (2) promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency, (3) encourage
greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes, (4) expand commercial and
industrial sector strategies, and (5) increase community water literacy.
Implementation Principles: Another new feature of the Plan is a set of three implementation principles. We
believe that these principles will help to improve the effectiveness of our programs and keep our actions in
alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan. The three principles are: 1) employ sophisticated data-driven
processes and decision-making, 2) cultivate new and bolster existing community and statewide partnerships,
and 3) coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City.
Community Engagement Summary
Staff has been performing extensive community engagement. A Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory Group
was created to provide input on the conservation goals and activities. This group met seven times throughout the
summer of 2015 to discuss various aspects of the Plan. Members of this group included:
• Water Resources Engineer
• 5 Water Boardmembers
• Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager
• Water Resources Manager
• Economic Health Director
• Environmental Planner
• Strategic Financial Planning Manager
• Water Conservation Manager (retired)
• Water Conservation Intern
• Utilities Customer Connections Manger
• Community Engagement Specialist
• Utility Rate Analyst
• Water Conservation Specialist
• Customer Accounts Manager
• City Forester
3
Packet Pg. 72
October 13, 2015 Page 3
Further stakeholder involvement was solicited during presentations to several City boards and commissions.
These included:
• Water Board work session, April 2, 2015
• Energy Board work session, June 4, 2015
• Planning and Zoning work session, June 5, 2015
• Parks and Recreation Board, June 24, 2015.
• Natural Resources Advisory Board, July 15, 2015
Community outreach has also begun ahead of the 60-day public comment period required by the state. So far,
staff has presented to
• CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation at a community issues forum, April 15, 2015
• Northern Colorado Home Builders Association’s newsletter, summer 2015
• Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, September 10, 2015
• Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local chapter of Trout Unlimited, September 16, 2015
• Save the Poudre, October 1, 2015
• Downtown Development Authority, December 10, 2015 (anticipated)
Public and board comments are summarized in the Water Efficiency Plan Community Outreach Summary
(Attachment 2).
The next steps include a 60-day public comment period (a CWCB requirement), an online survey to provide an
easy mechanism for the public to submit feedback and comments, and presentation to several City Boards and
Commission as well as interested community organizations prior to the Plan being finalized through a resolution.
Implementation
The goals and objectives of the Plan are supported through implementation of a wide range of existing programs
and activities, as well as the development of future programs. Existing programs, along with the first year of full
implementation are listed in Section 2.3.1 of the proposed Plan, with more detailed descriptions in Appendix B of
the proposed Plan.
Moving forward, staff will continue to support and align its work with other planning efforts involved, specifically
the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, the Climate Action Plan, and the Water Supply Shortage
Response Plan, among others. A thorough monitoring and evaluation process, as well as the BFO process, will
ultimately determine which activities are supported in any given year. Staff will continually evaluate progress
toward the proposed goal and program effectiveness, especially with an eye toward customer preferences,
evolving technology, and changing regulations and standards.
Timeline for next steps
Staff will update the Plan to address direction from this work session, input from the public comment period, and
input from continued outreach efforts. Pending Council direction from this work session, staff will bring forward the
Water Efficiency Plan for adoption by resolution in early spring 2016. This timeline will allow staff to incorporate
this Plan into the 2017-18 BFO process. Concurrently, staff will complete supporting documentation for submittal
to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for approval in early 2017.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (PDF)
2. Community Engagement Summary (PDF)
3. 2010 Water Conservation Plan (PDF)
4. Water Efficiency Plan (PDF)
5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 73
Water Conservation
Annual Report
2014
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Introduction
This is the 23
rd
Water Conservation
Annual Report prepared for the Fort
Collins City Council, which provides
accomplishments, partnerships, water
use and an update on the provisions of
the City’s Water Conservation Plan.
The City’s water conservation program
is a proactive response to water supply
variability and climate change. Reducing
indoor demand can be achieved through
improved technology, leak reduction and
behavior change. Outdoor demands can
be reduced through improved watering
efficiency and landscape transformation.
Lowering water use improves system
reliability and resilience to supply
variability.
The water conservation program
supports the City’s Strategic Plan in the
Environmental Health outcome area
related to a sustainable water supply.
Fort Collins Utilities’ water conservation
programs provide our community with
the resources and education necessary to
decrease water use. These efforts help
reduce the long-term costs of water
supply while meeting the demands of
our customers now and into the future.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................1
Water Sources..............................................2
Water Conservation Planning......................2
Water Use Goals..........................................3
Weather and Water Conditions....................4
Accomplishments ........................................5
Education and Public Information.........5
Water Rates and Usage Information .....7
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances:
Residential.............................................8
Outdoor Efficiency: Landscapes and
Irrigation................................................8
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances:
Commercial.........................................10
Water Reuse Systems..........................10
Regulatory Measures...........................11
Operational Measures..........................11
Graywater Research and Legislation.........13
Collaboration & Regional Participation ....13
How Are We Doing? .................................14
Rebates and Audits: 5-Year Summary.......15
Charts and Graphs......................................19
Water Conservation Plan Measures...........23
2014 Water Conservation Staff
Laurie D’Audney, Water Conservation Manager
Michelle Finchum, Public Relations Coordinator
Lucas Mouttet, Water Conservation Coordinator
Eric Olson, Water Conservation Coordinator
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 1
Executive Summary
Fort Collins Utilities offers a comprehensive water conservation program based on public
education, incentives, assessments and regulation. Programs target residential and
commercial customers, and indoor and outdoor water use. The Water Conservation Plan,
which sets a goal of 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020, guides the program. For
2014, the incremental target to reach this goal was 147 gpcd. The average demand (adjusted
for weather) in 2014 was 143 gpcd.
In early 2014, the mountain snowpack was average, but spring snows resulted in a snowpack
in May that was 30 percent above average. Total water demand in 2014 was only 90 percent
of projected use due in part to above average rainfall in July.
2014 Highlights
x Provided 2,749 rebates to residential and commercial customers,
amounting to 3,471 items rebated for consumer appliances and
sprinkler equipment.
x Completed 413 sprinkler system audits, identifying system problems
and recommending an efficient schedule for homes and homeowner
associations.
x Provided retrofits of showerheads, faucet aerators, shower timers and
toilets to 482 households in collaboration with the Larimer County
Conservation Corps.
x Developed and implemented a Xeriscape Design Assistance Program
where homeowners are offered a one-on-one consultation with a
landscape design professional and a rebate for installation. The
program achieved 46 landscape designs prepared and nine installation
rebates.
x Distributed Home Water Reports to 10,000 single-family residential
customers as part of a pilot program. The reports provide households
with information about their water use and how they compare to
similar households.
x Developed a Continuous Consumption Program to alert customers
who have three days without zero water use in order to support
potential leaks, giving them a chance to perform repairs in a timely
manner.
x Provided three all-day Poudre Watershed Tours during the summer.
Approximately 150 community members learned what it takes to
deliver quality water from the source to the treatment facility.
x Presented three Water Catcher awards to recognize the water
conservation efforts of two residents and one business at the
Sustainable Living Fair in September.
3.1
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 2
Our Water Sources
The City receives its water supplies from the Cache la
Poudre, Michigan and Colorado River basins. The Poudre
River basin sources include senior direct-flow water rights,
shares in several local irrigation companies and storage
capacity in Joe Wright Reservoir, located high in the basin
near Cameron Pass. Water from the Michigan River basin is
conveyed into the Poudre basin where it can be stored in Joe
Wright Reservoir then released for delivery to the water
treatment plant, along with other Poudre sources.
The City also owns units of the Colorado-Big Thompson
(C-BT) Project, administered by Northern Water (formerly
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District). C-BT
water is diverted from the upper Colorado River basin and stored in Lake Granby, Carter
Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir. The City takes delivery of its C-BT water out of Horsetooth
Reservoir.
On average, each source provides about half of the supplies used to meet Utilities’ customer
treated water demands. Including all sources, the City currently owns water rights that have
an average annual yield of approximately 75,000 acre-feet (AF) per year. Per City Council
policy, Utilities maintains sufficient water supply to meet an average annual treated water
demand of approximately 31,000 AF during a 1-in-50 year drought in the Poudre River basin.
During more severe droughts, restrictions may be implemented to reduce demand to match
available supplies.
Water Conservation Planning
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The original 1992 Water Demand Management Policy was updated and combined with the
Water Supply Policy in 2003. In November 2012, City Council adopted a revised Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy (WS&DMP).
The WS&DMP provides general criteria for decisions regarding water supply projects,
acquisition of water rights and demand management measures. The revised policy sets a
water supply planning demand level of 150 gpcd, which is used to determine water supply
and facility acquisitions. The policy refers to the Water Conservation Plan for a water use
efficiency goal. The planning level provides a value that is higher than the water use goal to
address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.
Water Conservation Plan
In 2010, the City’s Water Conservation Plan was approved by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) to comply with the State’s Water Conservation Act of 2004.
The Water Conservation Plan (fcgov.com/waterconservationplan) reflects specific measures
related to the demand management criteria outlined in the WS&DMP and sets a demand goal
of 140 gpcd by 2020. City Council approved the recommended measures through the
Budgeting for Outcomes process.
3.1
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 3
Programs target all customer classes and indoor and outdoor water use. Attachment ‘A’
shows the programs and measures in the plan, including the customer class that is impacted,
whether a measure affects indoor or outdoor use and the date of implementation.
The Water Conservation Act of 2004 requires that a plan be submitted to the CWCB every
seven years. Since the City’s plan was accepted by the CWCB in 2010, a revised plan is due
to be submitted in 2017. CWCB has changed the terminology to a ‘Water Efficiency Plan’
for the next round of submittals. Water efficiency encompasses not only conservation, but
also alternative water supplies such as reuse. During 2014, a timeline for the update was
established with work to be completed in 2015 and 2016 to meet the deadline.
Starting in 2014, House Bill 10-1051 requires covered entities to annually report water use
and water conservation data to be used for statewide water supply planning. Utilities
complied with this reporting requirement by submitting 2013 data in June 2014.
Water Use Goals
The Water Conservation Plan sets a goal of 140 gpcd by 2020. The gpcd calculation is based
on the total treated water used by City customers (adjusted for large contractual customers
and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the City’s
water service area and 365 days. This calculation is adjusted for weather (normalized) to
provide a fair comparison with other years.
2014 Water Use Savings
In 2014, the normalized average demand was estimated to be 143 gpcd, lower than 147 gpcd
in 2013. The table below shows the incremental annual targets for achieving the Water
Conservation Plan goal, actual normalized use and a 5-year average.
Water Conservation Plan Annual GPCD Targets
Target Actual
Normalized
Previous
5-yr. Average
Baseline 155
2010 153 144 151
2011 152 144 149
2012 150 152 148
2013 149 147 147
2014 147 143 146
2015 146
2016 144
2017 143
2018 142
2019 140
2020 139
3.1
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 4
2014 Weather and Water Conditions
Mountain snowpack was excellent in 2014, running
about average early in the year but finishing with
abundant spring snows resulting in a snowpack about
30 percent above average on May 1. The native Poudre
River flows were well above average at over 450,000
AF, compared to an average of 277,000 AF.
Temperatures during 2014 were generally warmer than
average, with a mean daily temperature of 50.5 degrees
Fahrenheit, about 2.2 degrees above average, just
warmer than 2013. Total precipitation for the year was
slightly above average at 16.7 inches, with particularly
generous rainfall in May and July. The last four months
of the year were very close to average precipitation.
Total water demand was 22,822 AF, only 90 percent of projected use due in part to above
average rainfall in July. However, winter water use was also significantly lower than
projected. The City’s peak day use of 37.1 million gallons occurred on July 9, and was lower
than any year since 1980 with the exception of 2009.
2014 Snowpack on the Michigan Ditch
3.1
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 5
2014 Accomplishments
The Water Conservation Plan identifies eight categories of programs and measures. Below is
a review of the accomplishments in each category.
1. Education and Public Information
Education and outreach efforts are a strong component of the City’s water conservation
program to raise awareness about the need for conservation and ways to conserve. These
programs reach residents, businesses and youth.
Public Information Campaign
x Answered customer inquiries and distributed information through brochures, bill inserts
and Utilities’ website
x Wrote articles for the Fort Collins Coloradoan, City News and Colorado WaterWise
newsletter
x Promoted water conservation messages on bus benches, bus
shelters and in the local newspaper
x Staffed displays at events, including Poudre Runs Through It,
Earth Day, Poudre River Festival, CSU’s Lagoon Concert,
Gardens on Spring Creek’s Harvest Festival, Northern Water’s
Conservation Fair and Colorado WaterWise’s Conservation
Summit
x Provided staff and materials at spring and fall campaign
events at home improvement stores and farmers markets
x Gave away water and energy conservation kits with
showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet leak detection dye tablets,
compact fluorescent light bulb and other energy efficiency
items in addition to shower timers and hose nozzles.
x Promoted Fix-a-Leak Week in March with a mayoral
proclamation, news release and social media to encourage
customers to check for and repair leaks. Letters were sent to 80 customers who had
continuous use, indicative of a leak.
x Participated in the National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation during the month
of April. Fort Collins took third place in the 100,000-299,000 population category. In
2014, 3,176 residents made a pledge to conserve water, up from 1,200 pledges in 2013.
Xeriscape Education
x Offered three 2-hour presentations, Understanding Permaculture, Unique and Functional
Xeriscape and Wildscaping 101 as part of the 27
th
annual Residential Environmental
Program Series. A total of 350 residents attended the programs.
x Co-coordinated the 11
th
annual full-day High Plains Landscape Workshop with a sold-out
crowd of nearly 300 people attending presentations on a variety of landscaping topics.
x Co-hosted two xeriscape classes, Composting and Native Plants, at the Gardens on
Spring Creek with 69 attendees.
3.1
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 6
x Hosted the 13
th
annual garden party in July at the City’s Xeriscape Demonstration
Garden. Master Gardeners provided guided tours, while nurseries, landscape designers
and a composter set up displays and answered questions. Refreshments and music also
were provided.
Irrigation Education
x Provided a daily Lawn Watering Guide on Utilities’ website at fcgov.com/lawnguide and
on the Coloradoan weather page. The guide shows how much water a lawn might need if
not watered for three, five or seven days.
x Co-hosted three irrigation classes at the Gardens on Spring Creek, two sessions of Just
Drip It (33 attendees) and Maximize Your Sprinklers (10 attendees); held sprinkler system
workshops at local retail stores, irrigation distributors and a nursery.
x Provided 149 customers with consultations regarding sprinkler equipment, performance
and maintenance.
Community Water Education
x Provided three all-day Poudre Watershed Tours. A
June tour was for educators, while the July and
August tours were open to the public.
Approximately 50 people attended each tour.
Participants learned about what it takes to provide
quality water from the source to the treatment
facility. Stops include a walk along the Michigan
Ditch, lunch at Cameron Pass and activities at
Gateway Park.
x Co-hosted the Big Splash Open House with the
Poudre Landmarks Foundation in June at the 1882
Water Works building. The event included tours, displays and activities.
Commercial Education
x Offered a program, Conserve in the Landscape, as part of the BizEd program series with
20 attendees aimed at commercial customers. Also offered Water Conservation for
Contractors, as part of the 2014 Contractor Training series with 18 attendees.
x As part of a regional collaboration, offered Water Efficiency Workshop for Colorado
Plumbing. The half-day workshop gave the 38 attendees the opportunity to learn about
the latest practices and regulations that promote water-efficient plumbing.
x Provided staff and materials about City programs at the ClimateWise EnvirOvation event
in May and other commercial customer events.
School Programs
x Co-sponsored the 23
rd
annual Children’s Water Festival. This fun event provided water
education to over 1,700 Poudre School District, private school and homeschooled third
graders. Students spent half a day at Front Range Community College learning all about
water through classroom presentations and hands-on exhibits.
Watershed Tour - August 2014
3.1
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 7
x Visited classrooms as Dr. WaterWISE, bringing a water conservation curriculum to
schools. Maps, activity books and teachers’ handbooks on a variety of water subjects
were distributed to teachers for use during their study of water.
x Presented classroom programs to elementary and junior high students about local water
history, watershed studies, microbiology and water chemistry.
Water Catchers
x Water Catcher awards recognize the efforts of residents
and businesses that conserve water. Two residents and a
business received awards in 2014. Doug and Lois
VanderWilt changed their conventional garden to a
wicking garden bed, a raised garden with a water reservoir
underneath. Using this method saved an estimated 654
gallons per month.
x Resident Katy Bigner took advantage of the City’s
Xeriscape Design Assistance Program and re-landscaped
part of her front yard. She’s saving an estimated 4,800
gallons per month.
x Colorado State University retrofitted the toilets and urinals at Rockwell Hall and replaced
several autoclaves at a Foothills campus building. In addition, the Colorado State Forest
Service switched from treated water to raw water for some irrigation. These projects have
an estimated water savings of 3.5 million gallons per year.
2. Water Rates and Usage Information
Increasing Block Rate: the three-tiered water rates for single-family and duplex customers
increased 4 percent in 2014.
Seasonal Rate: with higher rates from May through September, commercial and multi-
family customers experienced an increase of 4 percent in 2014. In addition, commercial
water rates also have a second tier based on higher water use.
Continuous Consumption Program: with installation of advanced, electronic water meters,
data from the meters is received on an hourly basis. A continuous consumption report is
generated daily and identifies customers whose water meters haven’t had a zero read in three
days, typically indicating a leak. Staff alert customers immediately and they are able to repair
leaks in a timely manner, not waiting for their monthly bill.
Home Water Reports: began a pilot program in 2014 to deliver Home Water Reports to
10,000 single-family residential customers, alternating months with delivery of the Home
Energy Reports. The reports provide households with information on their current water use
and compare it to their past use, the average of similar households and the use of the most
efficient households. A Budgeting for Outcomes offer was accepted and will expand
distribution of the reports to 15,000 customers in 2015 and 20,000 in 2016.
Online Water Use Calculator: an online tool for customers to help them evaluate their
water efficiency. A link to the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Home Water Works site
includes the calculator, water saving tips, and information on water-using fixtures and
appliances.
Katy Bigner accepts a Water Catcher
award from Eric Olson
3.1
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 8
3. Indoor Fixtures and Appliances: Residential
Incentive programs provide rebates, loans, services or goods to customers to encourage the
purchase of efficient products.
Rebates: offered rebates for the purchase of water-efficient clothes washers, dishwashers,
toilets and showerheads.
2014 Residential Indoor Rebates
Rebates # Items # Rebates
ENERGY STAR® clothes washer - $50 1,058 1,056
ENERGY STAR dishwasher - $25 787 785
MaP Premium toilet (1.06 gpf) - $75 51 31
WaterSense toilet (1.28 gpf) - $50 953 687
WaterSense showerhead (2 gpm) - $10 73 54
Total 2,922 2,613
On-bill Financing: offered low-interest loans for energy and water conservation projects.
Water loans are available for service line repairs or replacement. In 2014, seven on-bill
financing water loans were given.
Low Income Retrofit Program: participated in Larimer County Conservation Corps’ retrofit
program by providing 446 showerheads, 639 bathroom faucet aerators, 288 kitchen faucet
aerators, 111 toilet tank bags and 181 shower timers for the 482 homes that received retrofits.
In addition, 96 WaterSense labeled toilets were installed to replace high water use models.
The retrofits are estimated to save about 2 million gallons of water annually.
Home Efficiency Audits: offered an assessment of a home’s energy and water use and
provided a list of recommended measures to improve efficiency. During 2014, 662 audits
were conducted.
4. Outdoor Efficiency: Landscapes and Irrigation
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden: oversaw
maintenance of the City’s Xeriscape Demonstration
Garden with over 160 species of trees, shrubs,
perennials and groundcovers. The garden is a Plant
Select
®
demonstration garden, a cooperative program
between Denver Botanic Gardens, CSU and local
horticulturists, and identifies and promotes
distribution of plants that are well-suited for our
region. In 2014, the 15 interpretive signs were re-
designed and replaced. The welcome sign is at the
right.
Xeriscape Design Assistance Program: new for 2014, the Xeriscape Design Clinics were
revised into an ongoing design assistance program at a customer’s home. During 2014, 46
customers had a one-on-one consultation with a landscape design professional to develop a
xeric landscape plan for an area of their yard.
3.1
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 9
Sprinkler System Audits: offered a sprinkler system
audit program for the sixteenth summer. Sprinkler
systems were evaluated for watering efficiency, and
homeowners received a watering schedule and
information about proper watering.
x Five seasonal auditors performed 395 home and
18 HOA audits in 2014. Of these audits, 232
home and 11 HOA audits were for Fort Collins
Utilities water customers. Since the program’s
inception in 1999, 4,218 homes, 128 HOAs
andfive businesses have received sprinkler audits.
x Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (95 home
and 2 HOA audits) and East Larimer County
Water District (68 home audits) contracted with Utilities to perform audits for their
customers.
x In 2014, audit software using iPad technology was introduced to gather data and
prepare professional reports for participants. Also, in 2014 customers were able to
schedule audits online.
x Homeowners may borrow a self-audit kit with the equipment needed to assess their
own sprinkler system.
Sprinkler Equipment Rebates: Along with a rebate, a Tech Check consultation was offered
to ensure new equipment is correctly installed and programmed. In 2014, seven Tech Checks
were completed.
2014 Residential Sprinkler Equipment Rebates
Rebates # Items # Rebates
Weather-based controllers - $100 26 19
Soil moisture sensor - $45 3 1
Rain sensor - wired, $15, or
wireless, $30 35 30
High efficiency nozzles - $25 (purchases
of $50-$99) or $50 (more than $100) 40 26
Pressure-reducing heads - $25 (purchases
of $40-$79) or $40 (more than $80) 16 8
Pressure regulator 6 4
Total 135 97
Using an iPad to perform an audit
3.1
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 10
2014 Commercial Sprinkler Equipment Rebates
Rebates # Items # Rebates
Weather-based controllers – 50% of purchase
price, up to $400 22
Soil sensor - $45 1 1
Rain sensor - $30 2 2
High efficiency nozzles - $3 per nozzle 123 3
Pressure-reducing heads - $3 per head 2 2
Pressure regulator - $35 per zone 35 2
Total 165 12
5. Indoor Fixtures and Appliances: Commercial
Commercial Facility Assessments: performed 281 facility water and energy assessments for
commercial customers, compared to 268 in 2013 and 77 in 2012. They were done in
conjunction with ClimateWise and the Business Efficiency Program. Free faucet aerators
were provided to businesses at the time of the assessment.
Hotel Conservation Materials: water conservation materials were distributed to hotels,
motels and other local lodging establishments, including a linen reuse card, towel reuse
hanger and table-top brochure with information about the Poudre River watershed and
importance of conserving water.
Commercial Indoor Rebates: offered a variety of rebates to commercial customers for
water-efficient appliances and fixtures.
2014 Commercial Indoor Rebates
Rebates # Items # Rebates
MaP Premium tank toilets (1.06 gpf) - $75 107 8
WaterSense tank toilets (1.28 gpf) - $50 17 5
Flushometer toilets (1.28 gpf) - $100 71 3
Urinals (.5 gpf or less) - $100 32 7
WaterSense Showerhead 22 4
Total 249 27
6. Water Reuse Systems
Water Treatment Facility: treats the backwash water with ultraviolet disinfection and
recycles it to the beginning of the treatment process, allowing this water to be captured and
reused.
Drake Water Reclamation Facility: treated wastewater is reused by being pumped to the
Rawhide Power Plant for landscaping and cooling water.
3.1
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 11
7. Regulatory Measures
The City of Fort Collins has various regulations to encourage efficient water use.
Landscape and Irrigation Standards for Water Conservation: promote efficient water use
through proper landscape and irrigation system design and installation.
x Reviewed 59 landscape plans for new developments for compliance with the Land
Use Code water conservation standards. The plan review is part of the process prior
to City approval of new developments.
x Reviewed 69 irrigation plans and completed 52 site inspections of new developments
for compliance with the Land Use Code water conservation standards. The review is
part of the construction permitting process before a final building permit is issued.
Wasting Water Code: investigated 36 complaints in accordance with the Municipal Code’s
wasting water regulations. The wasting water code was update in July 2014 with Ordinance
No. 089, 2014, providing a clearer definition of the “waste of water,” extending wasting
water beyond irrigation use to service line and indoor leaks. In addition, hoses are required to
have a hand-activated hose nozzle for spraying impervious surfaces.
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan: outlines a series of measures to be enacted,
including water restrictions for four water shortage response levels. No water restrictions
were necessary in 2014. An update of the plan, Ordinance No. 088, 2014, was adopted by
City Council in July. It added definitions and associated restrictions for food production,
splash parks, outdoor swimming pools and essential powerwashing. The Municipal Code
also was revised to align with the plan.
Public outreach occurred jointly for the Wasting Water and Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan updates. Citizen feedback was gathered through an online survey and at a Community
Issues Forum.
Restrictive Covenants Ordinance: prohibits homeowner association covenants from
banning the use of Xeriscape or requiring that a percentage of the landscape be planted with
turf. Although customers asked questions, no enforcement was needed in 2014.
Soil Amendment Ordinance: requires organic matter be added to the soil before planting
turf to encourage deep roots and water penetration. In 2014, 655 soil amendment
certifications were issued.
Green Building Code: the City’s building code mandates WaterSense 1.28 gpf toilets as well
as low-flow faucets, urinals and showerheads in residential and commercial facilities.
Estimated annual water savings is 20 percent for residential properties and 25 percent for
commercial properties.
Streetscape Standards: The City’s Streetscape Standards outline requirements for
landscaping medians and parkways.
8. Operational Measures
Water Loss Program: A leak detection program uses sound detection equipment to identify
small to moderate leaks so they can be repaired before they become large leaks. Over a four
year period, Utilities surveys the 540 miles of water main to detect leaks. Pinpointing the
3.1
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 12
exact location of the leaks before they surface saves water and reduces excavation and street
pavement repair costs.
Advanced Meter Fort Collins (AMFC): With the replacement of most mechanical water
meters to electronic (advanced) meters, completed in 2013, a web portal became available to
customers in 2014. With the web portal, customers have access to hourly water use data and
can track their water consumption and receive leak or usage alerts.
Municipal Government Sustainability Management Plan: The City of Fort Collins has a
long history of promoting sustainable practices through a variety of innovative programs and
policies. The 2014 Municipal Government Sustainability Management plan outlines goals,
objectives and strategies to guide the City organization on a long-term sustainable path. A
goal related to water use says, “Reduce municipal operations water irrigation use and
increase efficiency per acre. Reduce building water use by 20 percent by 2020.”
City Buildings
x Planting was completed for a
demonstration of the City’s
parkway standards along Elm
Street at the Utilities Service
Center. Six garden designs are
displayed, including the one at the
right.
x Construction of new City-owned
buildings must achieve Leadership
in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) “Gold” certification to raise the bar for energy efficiency and
environmental design, including water conservation credits.
Parks Department Water Use Efficiency
Water consumption data was collected and analyzed throughout the parks system. Using
evapotranspiration (ET) readings, rainfall and water use readings, Parks calculates the
landscape’s need for water and compares it to the amount of water that was actually applied.
The ET rate during the 2014 irrigation season was 22.4 inches; effective rainfall was
calculated at 4.4 inches. Water need was 18 inches or 487,686 gallons per acre. Parks has a
goal to water all park areas at or under 95 percent of ET. The average water use for all park
areas was 79 percent of the amount needed. In 2014, Parks found that:
x nine parks used over 95 percent of the water needed
x 35 parks used under 95 percent of the water needed
x of the 35 parks, 31 used under 90 percent of the water needed
Audits are performed at sites when more than 95 percent of the area’s water need is used for
two consecutive months. During 2014, eight sites were audited.
When designing new community and neighborhood parks, water-efficient practices are
incorporated, such as low water use turf in low traffic areas. For example, areas of a park that
are designated for stormwater flows are ideal for types of grasses that do not need a lot of
water, fertilizer or mowing. These areas also provide a different visual aspect to the park,
creating unstructured play areas and enhancing the environmental value of the park. High
3.1
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 13
traffic areas use durable, water-efficient varieties of turfgrass. Whenever possible, raw water
is used for irrigation. Irrigation system designers work closely with the park design team to
make sure the system is efficient and uses the latest technology.
Graywater Research and Legislation
Graywater consists of wastewater from indoor activities
such as laundry facilities, but excludes wastewater from
toilet flushing and other waste streams that may threaten
public health and the environment.
In May 2013, House Bill 13-1044 authorized the use of
graywater in Colorado. Before graywater use will be
allowed by municipalities, the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission must adopt regulations to control its
use. Utilities staff participated in the Water Quality Control
Division’s stakeholder process to develop content for the
regulation. The rulemaking is expected to be complete in 2015.
Graywater Use in Fort Collins
HB 13-1044 does not require municipalities or counties to implement a graywater
program unless they choose to do so. Fort Collins is interested in pursuing graywater use.
The City’s Building Department will track and oversee installation of systems within the
city limits through issuing building permits and performing inspections at the time of
installation. Larimer County’s Department of Health and Environment will oversee
graywater systems outside the city limits.
Graywater Research
Utilities participated in the second year of a two-year contract with CSU’s College of
Engineering to continue their graywater research and perform other tasks to support
graywater use. Some outcomes included:
x Water use of several commercial customers was analyzed to see if graywater
reuse would be a viable option for them.
x A study was done analyzing various graywater adoption rates in Fort Collins and
their potential impacts on return flows.
x Fact sheets, to be distributed throughout the state, were developed addressing the
basics of graywater use, how to install a graywater system and best management
practices.
Collaboration and Regional Participation
The water conservation program is enhanced through partnerships with other City
departments, local businesses and regional and national organizations.
x Continued the free toilet recycling program in 2014, diverting tons of porcelain from the
landfill. The program is a partnership between the Utilities, Environmental Services and
Streets departments. Customers dropped off their high water-using toilets at the Habitat
ReStore or the City’s Hoffman Mill facility and the Streets Department crushed them into
road base.
Outdoor Graywater System
3.1
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 14
x Promoted the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense
program through rebates, articles and events. WaterSense promotes
and enhances water-efficient products and services. Utilities is a
WaterSense promotional partner and submitted WaterSense’s annual
reporting form and a nomination for an award.
Organization Participation
x Board member of Colorado WaterWise, a statewide organization with a mission to
promote the efficient use of Colorado’s water. Sponsored the WaterWise Summit in
October.
x Member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Education and Outreach, and WaterSense
and Water Efficient Products committees.
x Made presentations to various organizations, including the Fort Collins Historical
Society, Poudre Runs Through It steering team, CityWorks and Irrigation Association.
How Are We Doing?
Total Program Water Savings
Total water savings is estimated for measurable water conservation programs, including
rebates, sprinkler audits, equipment distribution, retrofits and Building Code regulations. The
water savings are calculated based on savings estimates for each type of measure, called
“deemed savings.” The deemed savings is taken from various water use studies. In 2014, the
verifiable water savings from programs was 27.2 million gallons or 83.5 acre feet.
ClimateWise Water Savings
During 2014, ClimateWise grew by 43 businesses, for a total of more than 350 business
partners. Since 2000, ClimateWise partners have saved 10 billion gallons of water.
Evaluating Water Use
The water use trend continues to be significantly lower than pre-2002 drought (1993-2001)
demands. Tiered and seasonal water rates, and water conservation efforts, contribute to this
trend. How much of the lower usage can be attributed to the City’s water conservation
measures is difficult to analyze. For over 20 years, low-flow plumbing standards and metered
water taps have contributed to the reduction of per capita water use.
Per capita water use can vary for many reasons; population is not the sole determinant of
water use. Changes in weather, season, household size and income also can contribute.
Precipitation levels and daily temperatures during the watering season cause water use to
vary considerably from year to year.
The first graph on the next page shows the percentage of water used indoors versus outdoors
by year for all water use. Indoor water use remains fairly consistent while outdoor water use
fluctuates. In 2014, outdoor water use was 33 percent of total use, compared with 32 percent
in 2013. The second graph compares indoor and total water use for single family homes.
3.1
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 15
39% 39%
36% 36%
39%
32%
39%
36%
39%
35%
41%
38%
36%
32%
31%
34%
40%
36%
34%
28%
35%
34%
40%
32%
33%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Millions of Gallons
Estimated Indoor and Outdoor Water Use
Indoor Use
Outdoor Use
100.2
95.2
112
90
81
56.3
52.3 53.8
51.1 46
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single Family Homes - GPCD
Total gpcd Indoor gpcd
3.1
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 16
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Clothes
Washer
Dishwasher Showerhead Toilet
Total per year
Residential Rebates - Indoor
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Controller Soil
Sensor
Rain
Sensor
Nozzles &
Heads
Pressure
Regulator
Total per year
Residential Rebates - Outdoor
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
3.1
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 17
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Total per year
Commercial Rebates - Indoor
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Controller Soil Sensor Rain
Sensor
Pressure
Regulator
Nozzles &
Heads
Total per year
Commercial Rebates - Outdoor
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
3.1
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
HOA Sprinkler
Audit
Custom Rebate Facility
Assessments
Total per year
Commercial Audits
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Sprinkler Audit LCCC Audits Home Efficiency
Audits
Total per year
Residential Audits
2
2
2
2
2
3.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 19
Historic Water Use Per Person1
Year Actual Use
(gpcd)
Normalized
Average Use2
(gpcd)
Actual
Peak Day Use
(gpc)
1 in 50
Normalized
Peak Day Use3
(gpc)
2003 154 157 346 383
2004 146 150 307 327
2005 155 155 365 363
2006 172 156 353 350
2007 162 156 342 356
2008 153 153 321 333
2009 135 147 265 304
2010 146 144 295 323
2011 141 144 285 309
2012 165 152 342 337
2013 141 147 312 327
2014 139 143 269 309
Notes:
1. Values do not include large contractual water use.
2. Normalized values represent average expected use for 1930-1995 weather conditions.
3. 1 in 50 peak use is expected to occur once in 50 years.
Historic Annual Water Use
Year
Service Area
Population
Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
Annual Water
Use
(MG)
Average Day
Use
(MGD)
Peak Day Use
(MGD)
2003 125,500 18.2 8,280 22.6 46.9
2004 125,800 18.1 7,984 21.8 42.3
2005 126,900 16.2 8,497 23.3 50.1
2006 127,800 11.2 9,268 25.4 48.9
2007 128,400 13.7 8,860 24.2 47.5
2008 128,700 13.8 8,352 22.8 44.3
2009 128,900 21.9 7,391 20.2 37.1
2010 129,000 14.1 7,830 21.4 40.8
2011 129,100 17.8 7,621 20.8 39.7
2012 129,200 10.8 8,757 23.9 46.8
2013 129,300 18.8 7,560 20.7 43.0
2014 130,200 16.7 7,437 20.3 37.2
3.1
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 20
Number of Accounts by Customer Class
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single-Family 26,627 26,588 26,605 26,654 26,930
Duplex 1,175 1,191 1,205 1,217 1,226
Multi-Family 2,154 2,165 2,180 2,204 2,240
Commercial 2,184 2,186 2,192 2,174 2,222
City Government 208 208 212 213 225
West Fort Collins WD 11111
Outside City Customers 1,414 1,415 1,419 1,427 1,454
Total 33,762 33,754 33,814 33,889 34,298
Water Use by Customer Class
(Million Gallons)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single-Family 2,619.1 2,475.3 2,915.8 2,347 2,142
Duplex 134.0 130.9 146.4 127.8 120
Multi-Family 1,000.2 980.2 1,048.2 1,096.6 970
Commercial 3,095.3 3,057.8 3,330.5 2,924.6 2972
City Government 122.8 108.0 148.1 100.4 107
West Fort Collins WD 168.3 146.9 169.9 154.1 140
Outside City Customers 263.8 259.5 303.4 274.7 280
System Losses 426.5 462.1 695.1 534.9 706
Total 7,830.1 7,620.7 8,757.4 7,560.1 7437
Water Use per Account by Customer Class
(Gallons per Year)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single-Family 98,363 93,097 109,594 88,056 79,536
Duplex 114,085 109,886 121,518 104,999 97,750
Multi-Family 464,338 452,038 480,866 497,632 432,934
Commercial 1,417,338 1,397,962 1,519,134 1,345,089 1,337,765
City Government 591,785 519,674 699,082 472,134 475,830
Outside City
Customers 186,599 183,365 213,772 192,547 192,751
3.1
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 21
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
Acre-Feet
Year
Annual Treated Water Use
1960-2014
WTF#2
WTF#1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13
MGD
Year
Peak Day Use
1961-2014
3.1
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
Inches
Year
Historic Annual Precipitation Fort Collins
1960-2014
1981-2010 Average
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Inches
Month
2014 Precipitation
2014 Precipitation (16.69")
81-'10 Average Precipitation
(16.08")
.
3.1
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 23
Attachment ‘A’
Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Plan: Recommended Measures
Measure
Customers Water Use Date
RSF RMF CII City Indoor Outdoor Started/
Ended
Education and Public Information
Conservation public information campaign XXXXX X 1977
Adult education programs XX X X 1977
Business programs XX X X 2004
School education programs XX X X 1977
Conservation giveaways XX X X 1990
Water conservation awards XXXXX X 2013-
2014
Water Rates and Usage Information
Increasing block rate – Res. X X X 2003
Seasonal rates – Comm. & multi-family XXXX X 2003
Continuous consumption program X X X 2014
Home Water Reports X X X 2014
Online access to water history XXX X X 2014
Online water use calculator X X X 2012
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances -
Residential
Clothes washer rebates XX X 2003
Dishwasher rebates XX X 2007
WaterSense toilet rebates XX X 2010
WaterSense showerhead rebates XX X 2013
Low income retrofit program XX X 2007
Zero-interest loans/On-bill financing X X 1994
Research: Water end use study X X X 2011
Outdoor Efficiency - Landscape and
Irrigation
Sprinkler system audits XX 1999
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden XXXX X 1986
Xeriscape design clinics XX X 2009-
2012
Xeriscape design assistance program XX X 2014
Xeriscape installation rebates XX X 2014
Sprinkler equipment rebates XXX X 2010
Raw water for irrigation at parks, cemeteries
and golf courses
X X 1900
Research: Determine irrigated area for lots XXXX X 2012
Research: Determine irrigated area for lots XXXX X 2012
3.1
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2014 Water Conservation Annual Report 24
Measure
Customers Water Use Date
RSF RMF CII City Indoor Outdoor Started/
Ended
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances -
Commercial
Commercial facility audits X X X 2004
Financial incentives for commercial water-
saving upgrades
X X X 2011
Hotel and restaurant conservation materials X X 2003
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution X X 2011
Water Reuse Systems
Large customer reuse XXX X 1980
Backwash recycling at water treatment facility X 2003
Regulatory Measures
Wasting water ordinance X XXXX X 1964
Restrictive covenants ordinance X X 2003
Soil amendment ordinance X XXX X 2003
Water Shortage Response Plan X XXXX X 2003
Landscape & irrigation standards for new
development
XXX X 1994
Operational Measures
Water loss program X 1993
Water loss program enhancement X Future
Water conservation upgrades at City LEED
buildings
X X X 2006
Water conservation upgrades at City facilities X X X 2010
Key:
RSF – Residential Single Family
RMF – Residential Multi-family
CII – Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
City – City government
Indoor – affects indoor water use
Outdoor – affects outdoor water use
Future – future measure
3.1
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2015 Water Efficiency Plan Community Engagement Summary
This plan was developed with input from a technical advisory group. This group included Utilities
and City staff as well as Water Board members. While the group was advisory, not
determinative in nature, significant time and energy was put into discussing conservation
measures and approaches to conservation. Team members included:
x Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer
x Alexander Maas, Water Board Member
x Brett Bovee, Water Board Member
x Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
x Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
x Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
x Katy Bigner, Environmental Planner
x Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
x Laurie D'Audney, Water Conservation Manager (retired)
x Lea Pace, Water Conservation Intern
x Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manger
x Michelle Finchum, Community Engagement Specialist
x Peter Mayer, Water DM
x Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
x Rebecca Hill, Water Board Member
x Renee Davis, Water Conservation Specialist
x Steve Malers, Water Board Chair
x Tiana Smith, Customer Accounts Manager
x Tim Buchanan, City Forester
This group met for seven meetings, with each meeting focusing on a specific topic. The topics
were:
Meeting 1: Water supply & storage; potential water efficiency goals
Meeting 2: Scenarios based on water efficiency goals
Meeting 3: Commercial impacts; current and potential conservation activities
Meeting 4: Revenue effects from lower demand
Meeting 5: Tree and landscape impacts; landscape survey results
Meeting 6: Scenarios based on water efficiency goals, identification of conservation
activities.
Meeting 7: Continued identification and discussion of conservation activities.
The Technical Advisory Group not only heard for expert City staff, but also provided input on
potential metrics and possible conservation activities. Several consistent themes came out of
this process:
x Help customers understand their water use patterns. Informed choices are the starting
point for choosing efficiency.
x Work with the brewers and other water-intensive large commercial customers. The
brewers in town are very environmentally forward thinking. Supporting them and
challenging them to do more is an important role for the conservation team.
x Outdoor water use, which is consumed water, is an area where we affect change.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Local business groups and organizations were also targeted for outreach.
x Planners worked in collaboration with CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation at a
community issues forum in April 2015. This meeting had diverse topics on the agenda
and as such provided broad outreach. This was a good chance to engage beyond the
usual water-focused audiences.
x Northern Colorado Home Builders Association’s newsletter carried information and a link
to the online survey.
x Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, September 10, 2015
o Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local chapter of Trout Unlimited, September 16,
2015
o Are we doing anything to “police” large commercial users with sprinkler systems
running during rain?
Talked about how we address large commercial landscapes: Plan review
for new construction; rain sensor requirement; rain sensor rebate (for
residential); and anticipated growth of sprinkler audit program into
commercial sector.
o How do we compare to California cities on GPCD?
Responded with clarification about how GPCD includes LCU and as such
is hard to compare, but that our single-family numbers are pretty good for
nearby towns. Reiterated that this comparison is apples to oranges.
o How does my toilet running waste?
Responded with: lots! Toilets can have high flow rates and silent leaks
can run for longer periods. Discussed tank dye test and flapper
replacement.
x Save The Poudre, October 1, 2015
o Questions about state’s requirements for plans.
Staff explained state requirements and how we’re meeting those
requirements.
o Expressed a desire to have graywater included in the plan’s activities.
o Expressed support for how water conservation goal has decreased over the
years.
The public and City stakeholders were engaged through presentations to various city advisory
boards.. Boards visited include:
x Water Board work session, April 2, 2015
x Energy Board work session, June 4, 2015
x Planning and Zoning work session, June 5, 2015
x Parks and Recreation Board, June 24, 2015.
x Natural Resources Advisory Board, July 15, 2015
3.2
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
In addition, we reached out to Economic Advisory Commission and the Land Conservation
Stewardship Board. These boards felt our plan was outside their scope, but expressed that if
Council directed, they would welcome a presentation.
Energy Board Discussion Highlights (June 4, 2015)
x Board members commented on the amount of energy required for water, and Ms. Davis
replied that Fort Collins’ trans-basin water comes from a high elevation to a lower
elevation, in contrast with California, which uses a lot of energy to pump water over
mountains.
x A board member inquired about the ratio of residential to commercial customers. Ms.
Davis replied it’s about an even share of the volume of water delivered. Washing
machines have become more efficient, and toilet efficiency is taking another step:
starting in 2016, state regulations will require that common water-using products (such
as toilets and showers) sold in
x Colorado must meet WaterSense standards. Commercial water conservation is also
focused on efficient toilets.
x A board member inquired about untreated water. Ms. Davis replied that staff is also
reviewing outside water use, but untreated water is not included in the Water Efficiency
Plan. She mentioned the City’s Parks Department does a lot with untreated water.
x A board member inquired what the target should be in the next few years if the goal by
2020 is 140 GPCD. Ms. Davis replied it’s delineated by the Water Supply and Demand
Policy; 150
x GPCD for supply. Fort Collins’ usage was 143 GPCD last year, so we’re doing well and
are very close to achieving the 2020 goal.
x Ms. Rosintoski offered to have Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin present the
Water
x Supply and Demand Policy in reply to a board member who mentioned reading the book
x Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water by Mark Reisner years
ago, and commented on his monthly water bill. The board member estimated paying $60
for infrastructure, and $5 for water, and speculated that even if he doubled his household
water use, he’d pay $10 for water. He commented that he doesn’t use a lot of water
because he doesn’t want to waste water, but his neighbor’s attitude is that if the City
wanted everyone to use less water, they’d charge more for it as an incentive to
conserve.
x A board member expressed interest in hearing a presentation by Mr. Dustin and learning
about what drives the cost of water here; the member mentioned Fort Collins is lucky to
get some of its water from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Ms. Davis pointed out
that CBT shares have come very expensive.
x A board member commented on not wanting to see water use curtailed because of an
increased population but rather simply because we’re located in the arid west.
x Mr. Phelan commented on staff’s attempts to promote water conservation when already
engaged with customers on other issues. Ms. Davis mentioned rebates provide
incentives; the City offers rebates on clothes washers and dishwashers. Some clothes
washers used to require 40 gallons per load; they now use 12 gallons. Older toilets used
seven gallons to flush.
Parks and Recreation Discussion Highlights
x Board – Can the public get information on issues at our residences so we would know if
there was an issue like an underground leak?
3.2
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
o Staff – Yes, there are ways to flag information with a new tool called Monitor My
Use http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/sustainability-leadership/advanced-meter-fort-
collins/monitor-my-use and Utilities also calls if we see something unusual.
x Board – Are the City Pools on this system?
o Staff – They may be already on this through Operations Services, but if not we
would be able to get them setup and we can help with an assessment.
x Board – Is there a bonus for residents that really conserve?
o Staff – Probably not, because you pay for delivery of water, not volume, so rates
tend to go up with conservation. That’s why we want to focus on water
efficiencies.
x Board – What are some upcoming changes?
o Staff – Mostly there is a shift from the focus being indoor conserving to a focus
on outdoor efficiencies.
x Board – Will you come back when there’s a final draft of the Plan?
o Staff – Sure, there’s no need for the P&R Boards approval or recommendation,
this was just informational to get the word out, but I would be happy to come
back.
Natural Resources Advisory Board Discussion Highlights (July 15, 2015)
x What is lowest per capita use possible?
o Gallons per household per day for single family residential: with all Water Sense
fixtures for indoor use, could get down to 40 gallon/capita/day. Fort Collins is at
about 80 right now. There is also residential outdoor, commercial, etc. and need
efficiency throughout.
o City is not all covered by Water Sense fixtures. Fort Collins is good with high
efficiency washers. Many toilets still need to be changed out. This is why
conservation has focused on rebates. As of 2016 will not be able to buy products
not Water Sense labelled in Colorado.
x Good sense of how yard water is used? Vision for reducing that?
o Yes, and action in place. Series of conservation measures in place. Big tools
have been rebates. Outdoor use for commercial and residential, encouraging
smart watering, and reducing lawn, getting rid of leaks, etc. Have commercial
programs including custom rebates. Just finished project with CSU on laundry.
o Needed balance: Surveys, people love how Fort Collins looks now. Get nervous
about conservation. Balance of parks and trees with xeriscaping. Have free
sprinkler audit program (200 residential audits annually). Have xeriscape design
assistance program with rebate. Also do hardware replacement. New
construction requirements as well. Permitting process that inspects sprinkler
design plans. Have estimate models of use and working to improve them.
x Does vision include grey water?
o Yes. Has been approved by state, but need plumbers trained and ordinances in
the City. Not sure will ever do rebates on grey water. Residential, hard to make
retrofitting cost effective as creating second plumbing system. New construction
focused. Best for larger scale projects such as dorms.
o Separate system for non-treated water for outdoor use. • Health issue. State
health department regulations.
x Reuse of treated water?
o City has reuse in place already. Rawhide is reuse for City service area.
x Goal of 140 gallons/capita/day is not an aspirational future goal since already attained.
o Need to balance new goal with rates. In development.
3.2
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
x At certain level of conservation putting utility at financial risk.
o More you use, more you pay. But what Utility provides is pipes. Paying for the
service. Those are fixed costs. Rates have to be adjusted to cover fixed costs.
x Have someone to look at own system inefficiencies?
o Yes. Water Loss Specialist. Looking for leaks, etc. Want AMIs in various
locations to find leaks in system. Leakage is around 6-7% annually. Other
communities are up to 50%.
x Is water fairly valued? Too cheap, too expensive? If cost of rate is infrastructure, not so
much for water, isn’t is harder to make market function properly.
o New manger is an economist so will be determined. Many costs are fixed.
Inclining locked rate structure. Economic signal to user about use. Study of
inclining rate structures showed Fort Collins has shallow increase. Not a strong
price signal.
x Decline in per capita use, coming less from financial sense as from right thing to do.
Have environmentally conscious citizenry, but at what point does that drop off.
o Also cost effectiveness. Are people going to replace appliances if doesn’t make
financial sense with water bill.
o People do care, but don’t understand own use.
x Suppose had goal of 120 gallons per capita per day. Would we still need to build
Halligan?
o Water supply and demand management policy sets two goals: 140 for
conservation and 150 for supply goal. Try to get a supply that is more robust than
what you need. Already have enough water rights for projected growth, but with
climate change need storage. Water goes away. Having water when we need it
versus timing of when can get water. Don’t need to buy more water rights.
x Would you be able to identify ballpark number at which would not need more storage?
o Would need to change how use water seasonally. Conservation does not
eliminate need for this particular reservoir. It is about timing and ability to store,
not volume.
o Someone should know that number. Should not split conservation from water
storage planning.
x Hard to compare to other cities as what is included in numbers differs from place to
place. Also, Fort Collins is drive-in community. Number shows that our use is going
down, but hard to compare to other communities.
x Would like to change goals for breweries water use as well.
o Economies of scale. Industry that has made Fort Collins famous, but exporting
our water. Ex: California drought, can still buy Sierra Nevada beer. Hard balance
between encouraging industry that brings revenue and employment, but exports
water.
o Does it make sense environmentally? Breweries want our water as it is top of
water shed. Doing more targeted outreach to breweries.
o Want to develop better metrics and benchmarks for commercial and residential.
A webpage has been created for the Water Efficincy Plan. This page detailed the process and
included a survey. Public was directed to the webpage and survey at various engagement
meetings.
3.2
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
1660 S. Albion St., Ste. 831 Denver, CO 80222 ph: 303 757-5611 fx: 303 757-5636 www.alcc.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________
September 29, 2015
Renee Davis
Water Conservation Specialist
City of Fort Collins Utilities
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Ms. Davis,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide stakeholder input on the city’s water conservation
plan. ALCC appreciates the chance to give industry perspective and insight on our state’s most
precious natural resource. This letter serves to summarize several key points that we would
like the city to consider during the update phase of the plan, as follows:
Holistic approach to Xeriscape. ALCC and the Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCO) support
a holistic approach to Xeriscape that in addition to emphasizing plant selection recognizes the
role that landscape management plays in water conservation. Any plant type can be
overwatered or watered inefficiently—our view is that all landscapes need to be managed
efficiently, according to the needs of the plants. Xeriscape addresses each step of the
landscape cycle from first design all the way through to how the site is maintained in
perpetuity. Opportunities for landscape water conservation include both landscape
characteristics with lower water requirements and efficient irrigation designs/installations and
water-efficient irrigation management. In essence, the design, installation and management
are the components incorporated into Xeriscape, which is also emphasized in GreenCO’s Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Demand reduction for urban landscapes will not be achieved by
simply “changing plants”, but also by changing behavior. We recommend that Xeriscape be a
key foundation in the city’s conservation plan as an important foundation for outdoor water
use and conservation.
Water budgeting. ALCC and GreenCO are long-time advocates water budgeting, which is a
primary practice included in the BMP manual and on-line tools (e.g., water budget calculator).
Water budgeting provides an equitable allocation of water for both indoor and outdoor use, a
strategy to allocate water based on the conditions in the landscape, and can be used by local
governments to design rate structures. Smart metering, which provides consumers real-time
consumption data, is another practice the industry fully supports; as technology improves with
metering, better informed, conservation-oriented water use decisions can be made in homes
and businesses. Additionally, improved data sets obtained through advanced metering
(separating indoor and outdoor) can be used to refine demand for both indoor and outdoor
water use.
3.2
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Incentives for outdoor water conservation measures. We support incentivizing both
residential and commercial property owners to help offset the cost of renovating existing
landscapes and upgrading the irrigation systems and technology. Proper landscape design,
appropriate plant selection, efficient irrigation design and installation and proper ongoing
maintenance are crucial for the sustainability of Colorado’s built landscape. ALCC can help
identify which incentives will reap the most water savings and where the city can direct their
rebate programs to realize a better return on investment. We have several case studies on
incentive partnerships between water providers, property owners and landscape companies
that provided both significant financial and water savings.
Partnerships. ALCC’s established partnership with the city can continue as we work together
on conservation incentives, continuing technical education on water management for the
industry, outreach and education of the public, and on sound city water policy to help meet
water shortages. We envision further collaboration between the industry and the city, as well
as other water providers in the region. With regard to training and education within the Green
Industry, we encourage the city to first consider existing certification and training programs
developed from within the industry—leveraging these programs, rather than duplicating work
already done or embarking on independent efforts. We would like to review the various
training programs offered through ALCC, GreenCO the Irrigation Association, Colorado State
University Extension, and others with water conservation staff.
Expanded Water Reuse. We join other business groups in encouraging expanded water reuse
throughout the state for agricultural, industrial, and municipal use. State and local policies and
regulations should continue to reduce barriers to and encourage the use of reclaimed water
and gray water for landscape irrigation, as well as other uses. (This also includes rainwater
harvesting.)
To help convey the quantitative benefits of landscape BMPs, both within the industry and for
water providers, GreenCO and ALCC have recently undertaken a study to further quantify the
benefits of landscape water conservation practices that incorporated normalized water savings
from the literature, engineering calculations to quantify the relative benefits of specific
practices, and a demand model applied at the basin scale (using the South Platte Basin as an
example). An Executive Summary of this report is attached, summarizing key findings and
providing a series of recommendations for policy makers.
We look forward to working in collaboration on the city’s water conservation plans.
Sincerely,
Kristen S. Fefes, CAE
Executive Director
cc: Tammy DiFalco, ALCC Membership Manager
Nate Caldwell, Foothills Landscape Maintenance
Zak George, Zak George Landscaping
3.2
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Community Engagement Summary (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Plan
February 12, 2009
Prepared by:
Peter Mayer, Aquacraft, Inc.
Laurie D’Audney & Dennis Bode, Fort Collins Utilities
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
3.3
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1
KEY UTILITY INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 3
WATER SYSTEM PROFILE........................................................................................ 3
Physical Characteristics of the Existing Water Supply System............................................................................3
Sources of Water ..................................................................................................................................................6
SYSTEM LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 10
Water Costs and Pricing ....................................................................................................................................11
Current Policies and Planning Initiatives..........................................................................................................12
Historic Water Demand .....................................................................................................................................13
Current Water Conservation Program...............................................................................................................19
POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PLANNING PROJECTIONS........................ 24
Forecasting Method ...........................................................................................................................................24
Previous Treated Water Demand Projections....................................................................................................25
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS.............................................................. 27
Potential Facility Needs.....................................................................................................................................28
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND MEASURES ..................................... 28
Conservation Goals and Identified Programs and Measures ............................................................................28
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND DEMAND FORECASTS ................................. 31
Baseline: Demand Forecast Without Conservation Program............................................................................31
Level 1: Current Program..................................................................................................................................32
Level 2: Recommended New Program...............................................................................................................32
Demand Forecasts .............................................................................................................................................38
Summary of Forecast Demands .........................................................................................................................39
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION PROGRAM .. 40
Ongoing Monitoring...........................................................................................................................................43
Plan Refinement .................................................................................................................................................43
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS .................................... 43
Fort Collins Compliance....................................................................................................................................43
3.3
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
3.3
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city of Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of Denver in Larimer County, nestled against
the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The Poudre River winds its way through north Fort Collins
before reaching the South Platte River to the east. Fort Collins is home to over 131,000 residents
and 25,000 students enrolled at Colorado State University.
The City of Fort Collins Utilities provides water, wastewater, stormwater and electric services to
the Fort Collins community. In 2007, the Utilities served 8.8 billion gallons of water to
approximately 128,000 people. Because the service area boundary does not coincide with the
city limits, the Utilities serves water to some customers outside the city limits, and not all those
within the city.
Water sources are solely surface supply from a wide variety of water rights. The City’s water
comes from the Poudre River Basin and the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project (which
includes Horsetooth Reservoir).
The City views the water conservation program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Reducing indoor demand through improved technology, leak
reduction and behavior change (all elements of the City’s conservation program) will improve
system reliability and resilience to supply variability year round. Reducing outdoor demand
through improved irrigation efficiency and landscape transformation (key elements of the City’s
conservation program) improves reliability during summer months when demand peaks,
providing additional water availability for storage and environmental flows.
Faced with a drought in 1977, the Utilities created a part-time position dedicated to water
conservation. Following the position expanding to full-time in 1990, the 1992 Water Demand
Management Policy set out 12 measures and two water use goals. Plans to develop a new
document for the conservation program began with the adoption of the 2003 Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy.
The State of Colorado Water Conservation Act of 2004 (HB 1365) requires entities that supply
2,000 acre-feet or more annually to submit a water conservation plan to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) before receiving financial assistance from the CWCB or the
Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Although Fort Collins isn’t
seeking funds from either State agency, this plan was developed based on the CWCB’s guidance
documents.
Goals and Recommendations
Fort Collins Utilities has established a goal for the conservation program of reducing water use
to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020 (normalized to account for weather conditions).
This goal represents realistic and achievable demand reductions in all customer sectors in Fort
Collins. Achieving this goal within the planning period will provide an additional measure of
reliability to the water supply system to ensure high quality service to customers in case of future
drought, climate change and unforeseen shortages.
The conservation program recommended in this plan includes all measures from Fort Collins
Utilities’ current program. The recommended program represents a significant expansion of the
current program and targets residential and commercial customers, and indoor and outdoor water
use. The program also includes an effort to reduce water loss from 6 percent down to 5 percent.
Water Conservation Plan 1 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Under current climate conditions, this program will save an estimated 2,300 acre-feet if
continued at the same level through the planning period to 2020. Table ES.1 presents a summary
of the forecast demands and water savings developed for this conservation plan.
Table ES.1: Summary of forecast demand and savings
Average Use
2020 Forecast
Demand
Savings vs.
Pre-2002 Use
Savings vs.
Baseline Use
Forecast (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year)
Pre-2002
(1998-2001) 34,000 39,700 N/A N/A
Baseline
(2003-2007) 27,500 31,800 7,900 N/A
Current Program 30,800 8,900 1,000
Recommended
Program 29,500 10,200 2,300
Benefits of Water Conservation
The City of Fort Collins is committed to expanding its conservation efforts. The City believes
water conservation is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
x Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste.
x Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability.
x Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes.
x Reduce costs for the Utility and for customers.
x Prepare for forecasted climate change.
Implementation and Monitoring
The new measures introduced in this plan will be implemented over a three year period. Fort
Collins Utilities will monitor implementation and impacts of the conservation plan on a regular
basis. Regular demand monitoring will provide information on water use and progress toward the
stated conservation goals. Adjustments to the program will be made as warranted due to new
technology or programs becoming outdated, changes in climate and any other unforeseen
circumstances. A complete formal review and revision of the conservation plan will be
completed within five years.
Public Review and Adoption
A 60-day public review period of the conservation plan took place from October 8 to December
7, 2007. During the review period, 34 comments were received and the plan was updated in
response. The plan will be presented to the Fort Collins City Council for adoption.
Water Conservation Plan 2 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
KEY UTILITY INFORMATION
The city of Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of Denver in Larimer County, nestled against
the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The Poudre River winds its way through north Fort Collins
before reaching the South Platte River to the east. With an average of 300 days of sunshine per
year and low humidity, Fort Collins averages 15 inches of precipitation annually.
Fort Collins is home to over 131,000 residents and 25,000 students enrolled at Colorado State
University. The city began as a hub for agricultural production, but has shifted its focus to a
high-tech economy. Between 1995 and 2005, the population grew an average of three percent
annually. As expected, the growth rate has become much slower; it was 1.6 percent for 2006.
WATER SYSTEM PROFILE
This section provides a summary of the physical characteristics of the existing water system,
including water sources, system limitations, costs and pricing, policies and planning initiatives
and conservation activities.
Physical Characteristics of the Existing Water Supply System
In 2007, Fort Collins Utilities served 8.8 billion gallons of water to approximately 128,000
people. One water treatment facility and 530 miles of water main deliver treated water to
customers. Two water reclamation facilities treat wastewater before it’s returned to the river.
The Utilities service area boundary does not coincide with the city limits. Some customers
outside the city limits are served, but not all those within the city. Fort Collins-Loveland Water
District (FCLWD) and East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) provide water to some areas
within the city limits and will most likely serve additional city residents in the future.
Fort Collins Utilities serves some areas outside the city limits, primarily to the northwest of Fort
Collins, including water provided to West Fort Collins Water District (WFCWD). Figure 1
shows the different service areas with respect to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Table 1 summarizes service area characteristics, water production and water demand by
customer sector.
Water Conservation Plan 3 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Figure 1: Treated water service area
Water Conservation Plan 4 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 1: Water system profile, 2007
Service Characteristics Number
Estimated service population 128,400
Estimated service area (sq. miles) 35
Miles of mains 530
Number of treatment plants 1
Number of separate water systems 0
Interconnection with other systems 6
Annual Water Supply Annual volume
(MG)
Number of intakes or
source points Percent metered
Groundwater 0 0 N/A
Surface water (treated & raw) 23,900 9 100%
Purchases: raw 0 0 N/A
Purchases: treated 0 0 N/A
Total annual water supply 23,900 9 100%
Service Connections Connections Water sales (MG) Percent metered
Residential, single-family 27,720 3,081 100%
Residential, multi-family 2,104 987 100%
Commercial & Industrial 2,103 3,557 100%
City government 199 137 100%
Wholesale 1 164 100%
Outside City customers 1,394 294 100%
Total 33,521 8,220 100%
Treated Water Demand Annual volume
(MG) Percent of total
Per connection
(MG)
Residential 4,232 37 0.14
Nonresidential 3,694 33 1.60
Wholesale 164 1 164
Outside City 294 3 0.21
City Raw water (Parks, etc.) 1,190 10 N/A
Raw water obligations 1,140 10 N/A
Nonaccount water: system losses 640 6 N/A
Total system demand (total use) 11,354 100 N/A
Treated Water
Average & Peak Demand Volume (MG) Total supply capacity
Percent of total
capacity
Average-day demand 24.2 87 28%
Maximum-day demand 47.5 87 55%
Maximum-hour demand N/A N/A N/A
Planning Prepared a plan Date Filed with state
Capital, facility or supply plan Yes 2003 No
Drought or emergency plan Yes 2003 No
Water conservation plan Yes 2008 Not yet
Water Conservation Plan 5 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Sources of Water
Water sources are solely surface supply from a wide variety of water rights. The City’s water
comes from the Poudre River Basin and the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project (which
includes Horsetooth Reservoir). Figure 2 shows the location of some of the City’s key facilities
related to delivering water from these sources. These facilities include the diversion structure and
pipeline off the Poudre River, Joe Wright Reservoir, Michigan Ditch and the water treatment
facility. Also shown are Horsetooth Reservoir and Halligan Reservoir operated by the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) and North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC),
respectively.
Poudre River
The following sources are generally available for diversion from the Poudre River. The City
diverts its Poudre River flows to the water treatment plant through two pipelines located on the
main stem of the river.
Senior Direct Flow Decrees: The City has five very senior direct flow decrees on the
Poudre River that are available to the City most of the time. Only in very severe dry
periods are the diversions limited.
Junior Direct Flow Decrees: These junior rights are only in priority during the peak
runoff period when most of the other rights on the Poudre River have been satisfied. In
dry years, the City may not be able to divert anything under these rights.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Shares: The City of Fort Collins owns about 70% of the
shares in this mutual irrigation company. The amount of water the City is entitled to
divert to meet treated water demands depends on the number of shares the City
designates for such use and which priorities owned by the irrigation company are in
priority during the season.
Southside Ditches: The City owns shares of stock in the Arthur, Larimer No. 2, New
Mercer and Warren Lake irrigation companies, referred to as the Southside Ditches. With
13 separate priorities, yields vary considerably from year to year. Much of the yield
comes from a couple of large junior rights and normally occurs during June.
Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir System: This system consists of a ditch that
diverts water from the Michigan River drainage across the divide into the Poudre River
Basin, Joe Wright Reservoir and storage capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir. Joe
Wright Reservoir includes about 6,500 acre-feet of active storage and is the only storage
facility owned by the City. There are usually periods during the peak runoff season in
which the reservoir is full and Michigan Ditch water is available if it can be taken directly
to meet demands. Joe Wright Reservoir is used primarily to regulate the annual Michigan
Ditch flows and has limited carryover capacity to provide drought protection for the City.
The City also has storage capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir, which is used to release
water to downstream senior rights on the Michigan River.
Water Supply and Storage Company Shares: The City owns about 26 shares in this
irrigation company. Since the City-owned shares are not presently decreed for municipal
use, this water is usually rented back for agricultural use. During the last 40 years, the
City has obtained shares of several local irrigation company stocks by developers
satisfying the City’s raw water requirements.
Water Conservation Plan 6 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Horsetooth Reservoir
Water from Horsetooth Reservoir, a part of the C-BT Project, can be delivered to the City’s
water treatment facility or to the Poudre River. Although the C-BT project includes a large
amount of storage, including Horsetooth Reservoir, the City currently has a limited ability to
carry over water in C-BT reservoirs for drought protection. Currently, the NCWCD allows a 20
percent carryover allowance, which can only be C-BT project water (as opposed to the excess
Poudre River water). The following sources are available for use from Horsetooth Reservoir.
Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Water: The City presently owns about 18,850 units of
C-BT water. Deliveries depend on the annual “quota” set by NCWCD each year. For the
most part, this water is the most flexible source that the City owns and can be used to fill
gaps from other sources.
Windy Gap Water: The City receives Windy Gap water from Platte River Power
Authority (PRPA) as payment for 4,200 acre-feet of reusable effluent made available to
PRPA by the City. The reusable effluent is the result of the Reuse Plan that involves the
City, PRPA, and the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC). The 4,200 acre-feet
of Windy Gap water is dedicated for large contractual use that requires reusable water.
As part of the Reuse Plan, the City is required to deliver 1,890 acre-feet of single use
water to the WSSC.
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) Shares: The City currently owns about 3,550
shares of NPIC. Each share consists of native water supply (which is primarily decreed
for agricultural use) and 4 units of C-BT water. Until the agricultural portion of each
share is changed for municipal purposes, the City can only use the C-BT portion of the
shares to meet treated water demands.
West Fort Collins Water District (WFCWD) Water: Through an agreement with the
WFCWD, the City provides treated water to their customers and in return, gets
reimbursed with an equivalent amount of C-BT water. In recent years, the amount
transferred to the City has been about 600 acre-feet each year.
Water Conservation Plan 7 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Figure 2: Water supply system
Water Conservation Plan 8 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
The C-BT water and part of the NPIC water provide the most flexible water supplies since they
are available in Horsetooth Reservoir where they can be stored until needed to meet demands. If
the water from these sources is in excess of the current year City demands, they can usually be
leased for agricultural use in the area. Because of this, in most years it is desirable to use other
sources to meet City demands prior to using the C-BT and NPIC supplies.
An important part of the City’s water supplies are sources that are reusable. Typically, this is
water that is imported from another basin or comes from specific in-basin sources that may be
totally consumed through succession of identified uses. For Fort Collins, this includes much of
the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir water, Windy Gap water and Southside Ditches
water that has been converted from agricultural use to municipal use. Approximately 20 percent
of the City’s supplies are reusable. Much of this is used as part of a Reuse Plan which involves
the City, a local irrigation company and Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). Reusable sources
owned by the City and the irrigation company are used through the City and the reusable effluent
is used by PRPA. In turn, PRPA provides Windy Gap water to the City where much of it is used
by a customer that requires a source of reusable water. The plan results in the efficient use of a
good part of the City’s reusable supplies.
The City of Fort Collins has a policy of acquiring and maintaining a water supply that is
sufficient to meet or exceed the demands during a severe drought that has been defined as a 1-in-
50 year drought. The City owns water rights that average over 70,000 acre-feet per year if they
were fully usable; however, because of various legal and capacity constraints the present firm
yield available for municipal use is about 31,000 acre-feet.
Firm Yield Concept
The yield from the City’s supply sources varies considerably from year to year. Because of this,
demands cannot easily be compared to the average annual supply yields. Instead, it is necessary
to make an analysis of how the supplies and demands compare during a series of critically dry
(or drought) years. A concept often referred to as “firm yield” is used by many entities to
measure the ability of their water supply system to meet water demands through a series of
drought years.
Firm yield is commonly determined by calculating the maximum constant base demand that can
be met with the available supply during a representative hydrologic period. For this determina-
tion, it is assumed that both the demand contributors (population, irrigated acres, etc.) and the
supply owned (storage capacity, water rights, shares of stock, etc.) are held constant during each
trial run of the hydrologic study period. This procedure results in a firm yield or safe average
annual demand (SAAD) that can be met with the current supply system. Once this is determined,
one can compare the present average annual demand with the firm yield to determine the margin
of safety or reserve supply.
The issue that often comes up in discussions about firm yield is whether the representative
hydrologic study period contains the type of drought for which protection is desired. Many
entities simply take a recent 20 or 30 year historic period and assume that if they can make it
through any droughts contained in that period, their supply is adequate. Without knowing
something about the severity of the drought in a historical period, the use of such a period may
not be adequate. The Fort Collins Drought Study, completed in 1985, was done primarily to
study the effects of prolonged droughts and to define them in terms of the probability of their
occurrence. In this study, synthetic hydrologic traces were produced based on statistical
Water Conservation Plan 9 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
parameters of the historic data available. This allowed analysis of numerous artificial drought
periods and a determination of representative droughts with calculated return frequencies. Once
this was determined, a computer model was used to determine the SAAD that could be met for
each drought type.
Raw Water Requirements
When new development occurs within the current Utility service area, developers are assessed a
raw water requirement (RWR). This practice originally began in the 1960s when two acre-feet
per acre of land developed was required. In the early 1970s this was changed to three acre-feet
per acre. Because water use varied considerably depending on the type of use for any given area,
a study was done in 1983-84 to develop another method of assessing the raw water requirements.
The resulting system, still in use, attempts to more closely assess the requirements based on
actual use.
For residential development, a formula was adopted that considers the density of residential
development. Water use is estimated by considering both indoor and outdoor use. The RWR is
calculated by multiplying the water use estimate by a “water supply factor” that is used to reflect
the variability in supply and demand from year to year as well as other unaccounted for water
use. The equation presently used to determine the residential RWR is as follows:
RWR = 1.92 x ((.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres))
The water supply factor was originally set at 1.6; however, following the adoption of the 1988
Water Supply Policy, the water supply factor was increased by 20% to 1.92.
Non-residential requirements are based on tap size. Water use was analyzed for all non-
residential customers for a given tap size and the requirements were based on those results. Since
there is a lot of variability within each tap size, a raw water surcharge is assessed for any annual
use exceeding an annual allotment. Requirements vary from .90 acre-feet for a 3/4 inch meter to
14.40 acre-feet for a 3 inch meter. If the water tap is above the 3 inch size, the RWR is based on
an estimate of water use.
Developers and builders may satisfy the raw water requirements by turning over water rights
acceptable to the City or paying cash in-lieu-of the water rights. Cash in-lieu-of payments can be
used to purchase additional water rights when appropriate or acquire other means of increasing
the City’s water supply, such as developing storage capacity. The cash fee has been periodically
adjusted over the years to reflect the price of water rights on the market.
System Limitations
The full use of the City’s water rights in a given year can be reduced by several physical and
legal constraints. A primary physical constraint is the lack of storage capacity to manage and
regulate the water rights owned by the City. Additional water storage capacity is needed to
increase the yield and reliability of its water supply system. Short-term storage is needed for
operational flexibility and to meet return flow obligations inherent with converted irrigation
shares.
Long-term carryover storage is needed to capture water during wetter years for use during drier
years. Both types of storage are needed to increase the reliability and redundancy desired to meet
the water needs of our customers. In November 2003, City Council approved a resolution to
exercise an option to acquire Halligan Reservoir and its enlargement potential. In 2004, the City
Water Conservation Plan 10 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
signed a cooperative agreement with partners and submitted a letter of intent to pursue the
project to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the project is approved by the COE after
an extensive environmental review and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, it is
expected that the City will have an additional storage capacity of up to 12,000 acre-feet to help
make more efficient use of its water supplies and provide a more reliable level of drought
protection.
The amount of additional reservoir capacity needed is somewhat dependent on the ultimate
demand level that results from water conservation efforts. In general, as demand goes down, the
amount of storage capacity needed also decreases. The relationship between water demand level
and storage capacity needed will be further developed and refined as part of the evaluation of the
proposed storage project. Variability in both water demands and water availability, particularly
in light of the uncertainty of climate changes, provides a challenge in projecting needed storage
capacity to help meet reliability criteria.
Table 2: Summary of system conditions
Planning Questions Yes No Comment
Is the system in a designated critical water supply
area? X
Does the system experience frequency shortages
or supply emergencies? X
Does the system have substantial unaccounted-
for and lost water? X
Is the system experiencing a high rate of
population and/or demand growth? X
Is the system planning substantial improvements
or additions? X
See discussion of water
storage and Halligan Reservoir
project.
Are increases to wastewater system capacity
anticipated within the planning horizon? X
Water Costs and Pricing
All Fort Collins Utilities water customers are metered. Historically, residential customers paid a
set rate per 1,000 gallons regardless of water use. Since January 2003, single-family and duplex
water rates are tiered. For many years, commercial customers have had a two-tier water rate.
Beginning in 2003, commercial and multi-family customers are billed seasonal rates–with higher
rates from May through September. Commercial rates still have a second tier for higher water
use. Table 3 presents the 2008 residential water rates and rate structure utilized by Fort Collins.
Water Conservation Plan 11 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 3: Residential water rates, 2008
Single-Family Duplex
Base Charge $12.72 $15.51
Tier Tier Size $/1,000 gal. $/1,000 gal.
0-7,000 gal $1.97
1
0-9,000 gal $1.97
7,001-13,000 gal $2.26
2
9,001-13,000 gal $2.26
3 Over 13,000 gal $2.60 $2.60
Current Policies and Planning Initiatives
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The City’s 1988 Water Supply Policy and 1992 Water Demand Management Policy were
combined and updated when City Council adopted the 2003 Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. The 2003 Policy provides general criteria for decisions regarding water
supply projects, acquisition of water rights and demand management measures. One key
provision of the Policy is a goal of reducing water use from the previous target of 195 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) to 185 gpcd (normalized to account for weather variations). The Policy
includes tools to meet this goal through educational programs, rate structures, incentive
programs, and regulatory and operational measures. Another key provision in the Policy provides
that the City will pursue the acquisition or development of additional storage capacity. Other
provisions include maintaining a water supply shortage response plan, use of surplus raw water,
fostering regional cooperation, protecting raw water quality and encouraging stream flow and
ecosystem protection and recreational/aesthetic flows.
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
In response to the severe drought year 2002 and in anticipation of continuing drought conditions,
the City developed the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, adopted by the City Council in
April 2003. The plan dictates the steps to be taken when there are water supply shortages and
contains four different response levels based on the severity of the shortage. Although the
Utility’s main objective is to provide customers with an adequate and reliable water supply, there
will be times when the City’s water supply is projected to be less than anticipated demands. A
response plan enables the City to quickly make the necessary adjustments in order to reduce
water demands to a level that matches supply. It is anticipated that this plan will be reviewed
periodically and may be changed in the future to match the City’s changing water supplies,
facilities and operations.
Improving System Reliability in Response to Climate Change and Supply Variability
The City acknowledges the best available scientific information on global climate change
predicts changes that could impact the Fort Collins water supply system. These changes could
include reduced snow pack, earlier runoff, hotter and drier summers, and an increased recurrence
of drought. The City views the water conservation program as an important proactive response to
these potential changes. Reducing indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction,
Water Conservation Plan 12 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
and behavior change (all elements of the City’s conservation program) will improve system
reliability and resilience to supply variability year round. Reducing outdoor demand through
improved irrigation efficiency and landscape transformation (key elements of the City’s
conservation program) improves reliability during summer months when demand peaks,
providing additional water availability for storage and environmental flows.
A key element to improving system reliability and resiliency in Fort Collins is storage. If
conserved water is to be used to help improve reliability, some portion of the conserved water
must be stored for use at a later date. Reducing demand by itself may offer some reliability
benefits, but during a water shortage such as a drought having water in storage is critical for
maintaining essential services. Future water supply planning efforts should carefully examine the
beneficial uses of conserved water for Fort Collins.
Historic Water Demand
Water use can vary for many reasons, including changes in weather, population, drought
awareness, rates and conservation efforts. Over the last 15 years, low-flow plumbing standards
have lowered water use through natural attrition and new construction.
Table 4 shows the history of water demand for the past 20 years. Figure 3 shows the population
and annual demand in a graphical format. Annual water use in 2004 was lower than the second
lowest use for this period in 1995. Per capita use has been below 185 gpcd since the 2002
drought when only 9.3 inches of precipitation fell and restrictions were in place. Table 5 shows
the number of accounts in each customer category from 2002–2007. Fewer than 1,000 new
accounts were added during this time indicating the relatively modest rate of growth in the
system. Table 6 provides the water use in each customer category from 2002–2007. Overall
demand in these recent years has been less than in the previous period even though the number
of accounts has increased. Table 7 presents the average per account water use by customer
category from 2002–2007.
Water Conservation Plan 13 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 4: Historic water demand
Year
Service
Area
Population
Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
Annual
Water
Use
(MG)
Average
Day Use
(MGD)
Peak
Day
Use
(MGD)
1989 93,600 12.9 9,548 26.2 60.6
1990 95,900 17.3 9,289 25.5 58.6
1991 97,200 14.1 9,020 24.7 55.9
1992 99,000 20.7 8,604 23.5 45.6
1993 101,400 17.3 8,384 23.0 52.5
1994 103,500 13.4 9,119 25.0 54.4
1995 106,200 20.2 8,069 22.1 55.5
1996 107,800 14.7 9,099 24.9 51.5
1997 111,500 24.8 8,768 24 58.9
1998 113,900 16.5 9,350 25.6 59.3
1999 115,900 20.7 9,000 24.7 53.7
2000 118,300 11.3 10,295 28.2 55.9
2001 121,300 12.3 9,978 27.3 55.8
2002 123,700 9.3 9,599 26.2 51.4
2003 125,500 18.2 8,280 22.6 46.9
2004 125,800 18.1 7,984 21.8 42.3
2005 126,900 16.2 8,497 23.3 50.1
2006 127,800 11.2 9,268 25.4 48.9
2007 128,400 13.7 8,860 24.2 47.5
Water Conservation Plan 14 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Population
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Annual Demand (MG)
Population Annual Water Use (MG)
Figure 3: Population and annual water use
Table 5: Number of accounts by customer category
Account Category 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Single-Family 26,160 26,091 26,168 26,272 26,413 26,555
Duplex 1,187 1,189 1,178 1,171 1,171 1,165
Multi-Family 1,962 2,013 2,049 2,072 2,094 2,104
Commercial 1,890 1,933 1,978 2,027 2,069 2,103
City Government 178 176 188 186 194 199
West Fort Collins WD 111111
Outside City Customers 1,408 1,323 1,327 1,351 1,370 1,394
Total 32,786 32,726 32,889 33,081 33,312 33,521
Water Conservation Plan 15 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 6: Water use by customer category
Customer Category
2002
Water
Use
(MG)
2003
Water
Use
(MG)
2004
Water
Use
(MG)
2005
Water
Use
(MG)
2006
Water
Use
(MG)
2007
Water
Use
(MG
Single-Family 3,433 2,886 2,555 2,802 3,204 2,938.
Duplex 167 144 131 137 151 143
Multi-Family 1,027 934 922 937 996 987
Commercial* 3,687 3,229 3,376 3,389 3,648 3,557
City Government 125 122 108 135 165 137
West Fort Collins WD 181 152 145 164 167 164
Outside City Customers 367 286 265 269 303 294
System Losses** 613 527 481 663 635 640
Total 9,599 8,280 7,984 8,497 9,268 8,860
Table 7: Average annual per account water use by customer category
Customer Category
2002 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
2003 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
2004 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
2005 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
2006 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
2007 Avg.
per acct.
use (gal.)
Single-Family 131,223 110,626 97,630 106,660 121,285 110,644
Duplex 141,025 121,182 110,965 116,958 128,908 122,489
Multi-Family 523,265 463,779 449,999 451,987 475,682 469,229
Commercial 1,950,800 1,670,684 1,706,679 1,671,721 1,762,374 1,691,314
City Government 698,833 694,648 577,093 726,493 851,554 686,922
.
Estimated Indoor and Outdoor Water Use
36%
38%
41%
35%
39%
36%
39%
32%
39%
36%
36%
39% 36%
32%
31%
34%
40%
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Millions of Gallons
Estimated Indoor Use
Estimated Outdoor Use
Figure 4: Estimated indoor and outdoor demand, Fort Collins Utilities
Per Capita Water Use
Table 8 shows per capita water use for 1994-2007. Fort Collins has seen a significant decrease in
water use over the past 15 years. Per capita use has decreased from around 200 gpcd in the 1990s
to below 160 gpcd during the last 5 years, a decrease of about 20 percent. Analyzing how much
of that reduction can be attributed to the City's water conservation measures is difficult. Tiered
and seasonal water rates, continuing drought awareness, low-flow plumbing standards and
metered water taps have also contributed. Water use can vary for many reasons, including
changes in weather, seasons, household size and income.
Per capita water use estimates can misrepresent water use trends over time. Population is not the
sole determinant of water use. Precipitation levels and daily temperatures during the watering
season cause water use to vary considerably from year to year.
Water Conservation Plan 17 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 8: Per capita water use
Year
Actual Per
Capita Use
(gpcd)
Normalized Per
Capita Use*
(gpcd)
Actual Peak Day
Demand (gpcd)
1 in 50 Normalized Peak
Day Demand** (gpcd)
1994 211 208 491 511
1995 181 205 492 526
1996 203 206 443 527
1997 188 196 496 509
1998 196 201 487 501
1999 185 198 435 473
2000 211 204 440 477
2001 198 198 428 503
2002 183 189 378 411
2003 154 157 346 383
2004 146 150 307 327
2005 155 155 365 363
2006 172 156 353 350
2007 162 156 342 356
Notes:
* Normalized values are adjusted to estimate average expected use based on "normalized" 1930-1995
weather conditions.
** 1 in 50 peak use is expected to occur once in 50 years. Log-Pearson type III distribution applied.
Values include all water demands except large contractual use. Since the severe drought year 2002,
actual and normalized use values have been significantly lower due to changes in water conservation
programs and practices.
Comparison with Other Colorado Utilities
Comparing water use patterns between utilities is a challenging exercise as it is often impossible
to compare demands in an “apples to apples” manner. By examining the annualized average per
household winter consumption for single-family customers (a reasonable estimate of annual
indoor use) it is possible to make a fair comparison. Table 9 presents a comparison of single-
family residential per household indoor demands in five Front Range utilities.
Table 9: Comparison of single-family per household indoor demands, 2005-2006
City
Avg. SF Indoor Demand
(gal/day)
Annual Indoor
(gal)
Boulder 151.5 55,300
Northglenn 153.4 56,000
Fort Collins 157.5 57,500
Denver 174.0 63,500
Aurora 174.5 63,700
During this time period, water use in Fort Collins was toward the lower end of this group.
Northglenn and Boulder were approximately 4 gallons per day (gpd) lower and Denver and
Aurora approximately 17 gpd higher than Fort Collins. Assuming 2.7 people per household in
Fort Collins, this suggests that residents in Fort Collins use approximately 58 gpcd for indoor
purposes. The national average (measured in 1999 as part of the AWWA Residential End Uses of
Water study) was 69.3 gpcd. Subsequent water use studies conducted by Aquacraft have shown
Water Conservation Plan 18 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
that homes equipped with high efficiency toilets and water conserving clothes washers can
reduce their demand to 40 gpcd (EPA Combined Retrofit Studies, 2004). This suggests that
while Fort Collins is below the national average for single-family indoor water use, significant
indoor conservation potential may exist (approximately 30%).
Current Water Conservation Program
Faced with a drought in 1977, the Utilities created a part-time position dedicated to water
conservation. In 1990, the position expanded to full-time and conservation projects and
educational efforts increased. The Fort Collins City Council adopted the Water Demand
Management Policy in 1992, setting two goals for lowering demand and 12 measures for
achieving those goals.
The effects of a more recent drought in 2002-2003 greatly impacted water use and the City’s
water conservation program. As awareness of the drought grew, the City’s outreach efforts
expanded, restrictions were put in place and regional media coverage affected how customers
used water. Water use began declining in 2002 and has remained at a lower level since then.
New programs introduced in 2003 included clothes washer rebates, a new water conservation
curriculum for youth, a Water Shortage Response Plan and various regulatory measures.
During 2003, the 1992 Water Demand Management Policy was updated and combined with the
1988 Water Supply Policy. Resolution 2003-104, a Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy, was adopted by City Council in September 2003. The resolution provides general criteria
for decisions regarding water supply projects, acquisition of water rights and demand
management measures. Demand management tools include educational programs, rate structures,
incentive programs, and regulatory and operational measures.
In 2007, Fort Collins became a partner in the U.S, EPA’s WaterSense program, a new national
water efficiency effort. WaterSense is a voluntary partnership program sponsored by the EPA
with the mission of protecting the future of our nation's water supply by promoting and
enhancing the market for water-efficient products and services. As the water counterpart to the
EnergyStar program, WaterSense has begun labeling products that offer a 20 percent efficiency
improvement to help consumers conserve water when they install new plumbing fixtures and
appliances.
Current Goals
As part of this plan, Fort Collins Utilities has established a goal for the conservation program of
reducing water use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020 (normalized to account for
weather conditions). This goal represents realistic and achievable demand reductions in all
customer sectors in Fort Collins under existing climate conditions. Achieving this goal within the
planning period will provide an additional measure of reliability to the water supply system to
ensure high quality service to customers in case of future drought, climate change and
unforeseen shortages.
Current Conservation Program
Fort Collins Utilities’ water conservation program offers a diverse range of activities targeted at
all water demand sectors in the service area. Fort Collins has implemented a conservation
oriented increasing tiered water rate structure designed to encourage efficient use. Following
descriptions of the current programs, Table 10 summarizes those conservation program
activities.
Water Conservation Plan 19 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Education and Public Information
Conservation public information campaign - Staff respond to residential and commercial
customers with water use or billing questions and requests for water conservation information.
Water conservation information is disseminated via a wide range of media; including bill inserts,
bus benches and brochures. Displays are set up at various community events; including the
Sustainable Living Fair, Thursday Night Music and More, and others. Topics include water-
saving tips, technology and techniques, Xeriscape and lawn watering.
Adult education programs - The Utilities provides programs about Xeriscape landscaping,
watering techniques and practices and general water conservation. A daily Lawn Watering Guide
is published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan during the watering season.
Business environmental programs - A series of programs is offered to commercial customers
on a variety of environmental topics, including water conservation. Staff provides newsletters,
mailings, meetings and seminars on topics of interest to specific businesses, such as restaurants,
hotels, car washes, landscapers and large accounts.
School education programs - Presentations and hands-on activities are provided to school
classes on water topics, including the history of water in Fort Collins, water use and
conservation, water chemistry and watersheds. Dr. WaterWise is a water conservation
curriculum introduced in 2003 to classrooms during the drought. Fort Collins Utilities is a co-
sponsor of the annual Children’s Water Festival.
Conservation giveaways - Water conservation kits with indoor or outdoor water-saving devices
are offered periodically free of charge through coupons in utility bills.
Water Rates and Usage Information
Increasing block rate structure – Tiered rates for single-family residential customers are
designed to charge an incrementally higher amount for higher water use.
Seasonal rate structure - Commercial and multi-family customers are billed with a seasonal
block rate structure with higher rates from May through September. Commercial rates have a
second tier for higher water use.
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances - Residential
Residential clothes washer rebates - The Utilities offers a $50 rebate for customers who
purchase high-efficiency clothes washers. Rebate costs are split between water and electric
utility funds. Some commercial rebates may also be given. Approximately 900 rebates are given
each year.
Dishwasher rebates – New in 2007, this program offers a $25 rebate when a qualifying
dishwasher is purchased. The cost of the rebates is shared with the electric utility fund.
Zero-interest Loan Program (ZILCH) - Loans are provided at no interest to residential
customers for water conservation improvements. Loans are available for water service line
replacements and high efficiency clothes washers.
Water Conservation Plan 20 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Outdoor Efficiency – Landscape and Irrigation
Sprinkler system audits – Available to homeowners and homeowner associations, Utilities
auditors perform a sprinkler system assessment and show sprinkler operators how to water more
efficiently. Approximately 250 audits are completed each year.
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden - Staff oversees maintenance of the City's Xeriscape
Demonstration Garden and provides tours at organized events and upon request.
Raw water for City irrigation - Raw water is used to irrigate 80% of the City’s parks,
cemeteries and golf courses.
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances – Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII)
CII facility audits - Staff performs facility water audits to assess water use and make
recommendations for improved efficiency. Many of these audits are done in conjunction with the
Climate Wise program.
Hotel and restaurant conservation material distribution – A three-card set is available for
hotels and other lodging establishments to inform guests about importance of water conservation
to our area, and encourage the reuse of towels and linens. Tent cards are available for restaurants
telling customers that “water is served upon request.”
Water Reuse Systems
Large customer reuse - Treated wastewater from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility is
pumped to Rawhide Power Plant for landscaping and cooling water.
Backwash water recycling - Backwash water recycling equipment at the water treatment
facility treats backwash water and recycles it to the beginning of the treatment process.
Regulatory Measures
Wasting water ordinance - Staff enforces the section of the City Code that prohibits wasting
water. Wasting water complaints are investigated. Complaints are used as an education tool, but
enforcement by ticketing is also an option.
Restrictive covenants ordinance - City Council adopted Ordinance No. 083, 2003 that prohibits
homeowner association's covenants from banning the use of Xeriscape or requiring a percentage
of landscape area to be planted with turf.
Soil amendment ordinance - City Council adopted Ordinance No. 084, 2003 that requires
builders to amend the soil for new properties.
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan – This plan has a series of measures to be enacted,
including water restrictions, for four levels of water shortage.
Landscape and irrigation standards - New development landscape and irrigation plans are
reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code's water conservation standards. As part of
these standards, a rain shut-off device is required for commercial sprinkler systems.
Operational Measures
Utility water loss program – All utilities “lose” water to leaks in the distribution system, meter
inaccuracy, billing errors, and other normal conditions associated with the standard operation of
Water Conservation Plan 21 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
a treated water delivery system. System water loss programs generally involve finding and
repairing leaks in the water distribution system—often the most easily addressed and
economically sensible manner to tackle system loss. The Fort Collins program entails listening
for leaks and pinpointing their locations using sonar equipment. It takes crews two years to
survey the 500 miles of water mains. The goal is to reduce water wasted from water main leaks.
Catching leaks before they have surfaced saves water and costs of excavation and repairs.
Water conservation upgrades at City LEED buildings - The City is committed to building
new City buildings to the LEED Gold standard (Silver standard in some cases). Water
conservation upgrades are part of this commitment.
Water Conservation Plan 22 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 10: Current water conservation program measures
Program/Measure
Date of
Implementation
Education and Public Information
Conservation public information campaign 1977
Adult education programs 1977
Business environmental programs 2004
School education programs 1977
Conservation giveaways 1990
Water Rates and Usage Information
Increasing block rate structure – Res. 2003
Seasonal rate structure – Comm. & MF 2003
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances - Residential
Residential clothes washer rebates 2003
Dishwasher rebates 2007
Zero-interest loan program 1994
Outdoor Efficiency - Landscapes and Irrigation
Sprinkler system audits 1999
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden 1986
Raw water for City irrigation 1900
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances - CII
CII facility audits 2004
Hotel and restaurant conservation materials 2003
Water Reuse Systems
Large customer reuse 1980
Backwash recycling at water treatment facility 2003
Regulatory Measures
Wasting water ordinance 1964
Restrictive covenants ordinance 2003
Soil amendment ordinance 2003
Water Shortage Response Plan 2003
Landscape & irrigation standards 1994
Operational Measures
Utility water loss program 1993
Water conservation upgrades at City LEED buildings 2006
Water Conservation Plan 23 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PLANNING PROJECTIONS
Forecasting Method
During the development of the 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy,
considerable effort was made to forecast future population and water demand. This data was
updated in 2006 when additional planning information became available. It is this updated data
that is reflected in this section of the conservation plan.
Estimating the future population to be served water by Fort Collins Utilities was quite
challenging since its service area boundary does not coincide with the city limits. This is further
complicated because the boundaries vary for other utility services (electric, wastewater and
stormwater). The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) and the East Larimer County
Water District (ELCO) provide water to some areas within the city limits and will most likely
serve additional city residents in the future. The Utilities also serves some areas outside the city
limits, primarily to the northwest of Fort Collins, including water provided to the West Fort
Collins Water District (WFCWD). All of these factors were considered in estimating the
population for the Utilities water service area. Figure 1 shows the different service areas with
respect to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The projected population estimates for the Utilities water service area were based on the Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) information developed for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
The TAZ information is based on selected zones in and around the city that correlate with the
City and County zoning designations, which dictate the type of development and their densities.
The population within the Utilities water service area was obtained by cross-referencing the
service area with the TAZs. Future population projections were based on projected in-fill for
each of the TAZs and it was assumed that the rate of growth will be similar to past patterns.
Projections were made through the year 2035 to provide a long-term look at the effects of
growth. Fort Collins anticipates that more of its growth toward build out will occur in the next 15
years (2008–2023) compared with the following years (2024–2035).
Fort Collins planning boundaries are clearly defined and unlikely to change significantly. As
time goes on there will be less and less land available for development. The anticipated slowing
population growth over time (i.e. decay in the growth rate) is expected to translate into slowing
water demand growth at the end of the planning period as well. Demand projections developed
for this study reflect this anticipated change in growth rate over time. Although the projections
will be updated from time to time and will not match the actual growth precisely, it is believed
that these projections provide a reasonable basis for the planning needed to project future water
supplies and demands.
Although the Utilities water service area is limited by the surrounding water districts, the City
currently has some water sale and exchange agreements to supply water to these water districts.
With these agreements in place, and the potential for more in the future, additional population
was added for growth within the City but which is outside the current water service area. It is
estimated that by 2035 an additional 10,000 people will be served by the Utilities that is within
the service area of the water districts. Currently, it is estimated that the Utilities will serve water
to a total population of about 157,700 people by the year 2035.
Water Conservation Plan 24 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Population was used as the primary factor in determining projected water use. It is expected that
most growth in the community will be made up of a similar proportion of residential, commercial
and other uses as presently exists. Because of this, treated water demands were forecast based on
two main components. The first is what has been referred to as population-based demand, per
capita water use multiplied by the population. The second component is an estimated use for
large contractual users that the Utilities has an obligation to serve.
Since significant large contractual use can skew the per capita demand rates calculated for the
City’s water use, it was not used in the gpcd method of calculating future water needs. Instead,
large contractual demands were estimated on an individual basis and added to the population
related demand. During the treatment process, a small percentage of the water is lost. This is
added to the demands to reflect the amount of raw water supply that needs to be delivered to the
treatment facility. Based on these assumptions and criteria, treated water demands were
calculated as shown in the following section.
Previous Treated Water Demand Projections
Table 11 shows a summary of the Utilities water service area historic use from 1960 and the
projected demand through 2035 for the utility projected service area. Two different water
demand projections are shown. The first scenario, shown under the heading of 185 gpcd, reflects
the projections that were used in the development of the 2003 Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. The second scenario, shown under the heading of 161 gpcd, reflects the
current number that is being considered for purposes of water supply planning. Because of the
significant reductions in use for the last several years, it seems prudent to adjust the numbers that
are used for planning purposes. Even though the water conservation goal of 140 gpcd is believed
to be obtainable, there are many uncertainties regarding the future reliability of the City’s water
supply. Future issues, such as climate change, make it important to continue to plan for a slightly
higher water demand for purposes of developing the City’s supply system. Figure 5 presents the
same data in graphical format.
Raw Water Demand Projections
In addition to treated water demands, the Utilities has various raw water demands that are met
with available supplies. These demands include raw water for irrigation of parks, golf courses, a
cemetery, school grounds and various other greenbelt areas. The current raw water demands
range from about 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet per year and are in addition to the supplies needed to
meet treated water demands. There are also several raw water obligations totaling approximately
4,000 acre-feet per year that need to be met because of various exchanges and agreements.
Although it is anticipated that the demand for raw water will increase in the future, these
demands will probably be met with water rights provided to the City (in addition to the projected
water rights acquisitions through the raw water requirements that will meet treated water
demands).
Water Conservation Plan 25 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 11: Historic and projected population and treated water demand (1960–2035)
Historic Service Area1 Projected Service Area1
Demand3,4
Population
(1,000)
Demand2,4
(Ac-ft)
Population
(1,000) 185 GPCD
(Ac-ft)
161 GPCD
(Ac-ft)
1960 27.5 7,277
1965 38.2 10,109
1970 48.4 12,808
1975 60.4 15,984
1980 73.7 19,504
1985 85.0 22,494
1990 95.9 29,316
1995 106.2 30,168
2000 118.0 31,690
2005 130.3 32,694
2010 137.4 34,219 30,416
2015 144.4 36,497 32,498
2020 148.5 38,144 34,032
2025 152.4 39,749 35,529
2030 155.1 41,098 36,803
2035 157.7 42,425 38,059
Notes:
1. The Historic Service Area includes the City’s current utility service area plus the area served by
the West Fort Collins Water District. The 2005-2035 values also include water delivered to the
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District special agreement area.
2. Based on 225 gpcd for 1960-1990, 210 gpcd for 1995, 198 gpcd for 2000, and 161 gpcd for 2005;
plus large contractual demands ranging from 3,750 ac-ft in 1990 to 4,010 ac-ft in 2005.
3. Based on the stated amount of gpcd for the 2010-2035 planning period; plus large contractual
demands increasing from 4,760 ac-ft in 2010 to 8,510 ac-ft in 2035 during the projected period.
4. An additional 5% for 1960-2000 and 3% for 2005-2035 of treated water use is included to process
the water. The drop in amounts is due to backwash recycling implemented in 2003.
Water Conservation Plan 26 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Population
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Water Demand (AF)
Population (1,000s) Water Demand (AF)
Historic population
and demand
Projected population
and demand
Figure 5: Historic and projected population and treated water demand (from previous studies)
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS
Integrated Resources Planning in Fort Collins – Water Supply and Demand Management
In planning for a safe, secure, and sustainable water future, the City of Fort Collins employs an
integrated resources planning strategy that carefully considers a range of supply and demand
management options. In confronting the future water supply uncertainties posed by climate
change and the potential for increased and extended droughts, the City has opted for a diversified
approach that increases storage capacity (and hence flexibility in system operations) and an
expanded water conservation program to reduce demand and improve system reliability and
resilience to drought.
The combination of increased storage and reduced demand through conservation offers the best
water management option for meeting future supply challenges. The proposed Halligan
Reservoir enlargement will provide increased water storage which is the primary physical
constraint the City faces in managing and regulating its water rights portfolio. When combined
with the anticipated demand reductions from the City’s expanded water conservation program,
this integrated strategy will help improve Fort Collins’ ability to weather the expected impacts of
climate changes during the next few decades and beyond. Emerging global climate models
suggest temperatures will rise causing higher water demands and more frequent and intense
Expanded water conservation offers cost-effective water supply that can be stored for drought,
leased for agriculture, or potentially used for beneficial environmental enhancement efforts such
as in-stream flow programs. However, water conservation savings must be quantified and proven
sustainable if they are to be relied upon for various beneficial uses. Increased storage provides a
physical location for conserved water and enables Fort Collins to take full advantage of savings
achieved by customers.
Potential Facility Needs
The City of Fort Collins is fortunate in that most of the infrastructure is in place to support the
projected level of water use as defined in the 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy. The peak day capacity of the Water Treatment Facility is 87 million gallons per day,
which is higher than the projected peak demand level for build-out in the Utility service area. In
addition, there is adequate capacity in the major transmission lines to support projected peak day
demands.
The primary water facility needs are related to additional water storage capacity that is required
to meet the policy drought criteria. Fort Collins requires both short-term and long-term carryover
storage to maximize operational flexibility and system reliability and to take advantage of
anticipated conservation savings. Short-term storage is needed for operational flexibility and to
meet return flow obligations inherent with converted irrigation company shares. Long-term
carryover storage is needed to capture excess water in wetter years and water conserved by Fort
Collins citizens. This provides a source of water in drought years to provide the desired level of
water system reliability.
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND MEASURES
Conservation Goals and Identified Programs and Measures
Water Conservation Goal
In 2007, Fort Collins Utilities set a goal of reducing water use to 140 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) by 2020. This goal represents realistic and achievable demand reductions in all customer
sectors in Fort Collins, based on current water demand factors. Achieving this goal in the 12 year
planning period will provide an additional measure of reliability to the water supply system to
ensure high quality service to customers in case of future drought, climate change and
unforeseen shortages. It will be necessary, in particular, to monitor the effects of expected
climate change impacts on water use. This is particularly true for the outdoor component of use
and may require that some adjustments be made to the goal in the future. Adapting to changes in
the supply and demand conditions is a normal element of water conservation planning.
The City will implement the necessary water conservation practices and programs to reduce its
water use to reach the 140 gpcd goal by 2020. The gallons per capita calculation is made by
dividing total treated water produced for use by City customers (adjusted for large contractual
customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) by the estimated population of the City’s
water service area. It is also “normalized” by adjusting it for weather conditions so it is
representative of a year with average precipitation and temperatures.
Water Conservation Plan 28 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Benefits of Water Conservation
Water conservation is of vital importance to the City of Fort Collins. Although there are many
reasons to implement and expand water conservation efforts, a few key ones include:
To foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste. The success of the City’s water conservation
program depends on the cooperation of its customers. Instilling a conservation ethic is an
important first step to changing habits and attitudes toward water use. The objective of the 140
gpcd level of use is to provide adequate water to customers, while reducing unnecessary use and
waste. Much of indoor water use is for fundamental and public health purposes, such as drinking,
flushing and cleaning, not only in homes but also in businesses, schools and industry. Adequate
quantities of water are necessary to meet these important functions. Outdoor water use is
primarily watering landscapes. Adequate supplies are needed to maintain trees, bushes and other
vegetation at a level desired by the community and which provides desirable benefits to the
urban environment. Even at 140 gpcd, outdoor water use will continue to constitute about one-
third of the total use by Fort Collins’ customers.
To demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. The City has an approved Action Plan for
Sustainability that states, “Being sustainable means considering the environmental, financial and
human impacts of all of our decisions. It means recognizing new challenges that result from
finite resources. It means considering the long term impacts of our actions.” In addition, the
Utilities is launching the 21st Century Utilities project with the purpose of "inspiring community
leadership by reducing environmental impact while benefiting customers, the economy and
society."
The City believes it’s important to conserve water because it’s good stewardship; it’s the
responsible way to manage a vital resource. Sustainability means not only conserving water, but
also efficiently managing our water supply portfolio in a manner that is environmentally
responsible and will best serve our community’s residents.
To provide water for multiple beneficial purposes. The City owns a portfolio of water rights that
produces a plentiful supply of water in most years. The yield of these water rights varies
considerably and in times of severe drought the supply system may be stressed resulting in the
need for extra conservation measures. In most years, however, the City has supplies that are
surplus to its normal municipal demands. One reason for an aggressive water conservation
program is to be able to provide more water for beneficial uses beyond normal municipal
purposes. For example, the area around Fort Collins continues to be a productive agricultural
area that produces many crops that provide a local food source and provides additional economic
activity to the area. These remaining agricultural areas also provide significant open space
outside of Fort Collins that is desired by many residents. Making some of the City’s surplus
water available for these purposes also provides supplemental revenue for the Utility and its
customers. The potential environmental benefits of conserved water are also important.
Providing additional flow for the local stream systems, in-stream flow programs, improvements
in water quality, improvements in aquatic and riparian ecosystems, enhanced recreational
opportunities, and aesthetics are all potential benefits of water conservation in Fort Collins.
To reduce costs. There are costs associated with varying levels of water use in Fort Collins.
These include costs for the Utility as a whole and for individual customers. Utility costs, which
are also passed on to customers, include any water system infrastructure costs dependent on the
level of water use or water flow. These costs may include water rights acquisition, enhanced or
Water Conservation Plan 29 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
expanded treatment, distribution and storage facilities, environmental and agricultural impacts,
and legal issues. Ongoing variable charges related to the level of use are typically for items such
as energy for pumping and chemicals for treatment. These costs extend beyond the direct
financial impact to the Utility and include the anticipated costs and impacts associated with long-
term climate change and the hazards associated with the use of certain chemicals. From the
customer perspective, lowering Utility water bills through conservation can reduce other costs
indirectly. These savings may come from reductions in the energy required for heating water,
reduced use of fertilizer and landscape chemicals, and reduced landscape maintenance costs. Fort
Collins seeks to minimize both direct and indirect costs to citizens while providing all of the
benefits of the efficient use of water.
To prepare for forecasted climate change. Climate change may have significant impacts on both
water demands and water supplies in the time frame of this plan. Numerous studies on climate
change and the general impacts that are expected in the field of water supply and demand have
been produced by reputable scientific organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Although additional research is still needed to determine the extent of local impacts, there is
general consensus that climate change in the Mountain West will likely include the following
changes:
x Increased evapotranspiration rates, increasing the water required to maintain landscaping.
x More frequent dry spells and a longer growing season.
x Changes in seasonal snow pack.
x Earlier spring snowmelt and runoff.
x Changes in the distribution of precipitation over the year.
These changes are expected to accelerate over the decades ahead and impacts may depend
largely on factors such as population growth, economic growth and technological changes.
Utilities will likely face significant challenges in the years ahead managing both water demands
and water supplies.
In the area along the Front Range of northern Colorado, it is particularly difficult to project
future temperature and precipitation trends. One such attempt, averaging the results of several
Global Climate Models (GCM), results in some potential scenarios for this area. These models
suggest that temperatures could increase an average of about 2 degrees Celsius by 2040 and 3
degrees by 2070. The change in precipitation shows an average annual increase of about 1% by
2040 and 2% by 2070. The distribution over the year changes and it is expected to be wetter
during the winter months and drier during the spring and summer months.
From a water demand perspective, hotter and drier conditions during the growing season will
result in more evapotranspiration and water use for many trees, lawns and other vegetation. In
Fort Collins, outdoor water use is about one-third of total use on an annual basis. Based on
current use patterns and conditions, a 10% increase in outdoor water use could result in an
increase of about 7 gpcd. A 20% increase in outdoor water use translates to an increase of 14
gpcd. Without conservation and/or significant changes in landscaping choices, outdoor water use
will likely increase over the coming decades as customers strive to maintain their landscapes in a
hotter and longer growing season.
Water Conservation Plan 30 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
It is currently difficult to predict how climate change will alter the quantity and timing of runoff.
Many models suggest that there will be less runoff in the spring and early summer from
snowmelt. Models also suggest that the variability and duration of wet periods and droughts will
be more severe. The yield of the City’s current water rights portfolio could vary more from year
to year, resulting in an increase of water “short” years. This in turn would make meeting
demands more challenging. There may also be some years that are wetter than what has been
experienced in the past.
With many uncertainties regarding both water supply and demand, it is prudent to prepare for a
wide range of conditions in the future. Additional reductions in water use through thoughtful
conservation measures are a prudent and sensible approach to begin confronting this uncertainty.
Planning for adequate reservoir capacity to help balance the swing in supplies available between
wet and dry periods is also a prudent and sensible approach. Fort Collins seeks to combine these
efforts to provide for a sustainable water future in the face of great challenges and uncertainty.
Document the Goal Development Process
In September 2003, the Fort Collins City Council adopted the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. The objective of the Policy was, “to provide a sustainable and integrated
approach to (1) providing an adequate and reliable supply of water for the beneficial use by
customers and the community and (2) managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a
scarce and valuable resource.” The Policy set a goal of 185 gpcd by 2010. This goal made sense
at the time; however per capita water use has been significantly lower since 2002. A new water
use goal of 140 gpcd by 2020 was established as part of the process of developing this plan
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND DEMAND FORECASTS
Demand forecasts were prepared for each of the scenarios described below including the
Baseline (no conservation) scenario. The forecasting methodology uses current per capita
demand as the basis and then forecasts future demand using Fort Collins population planning
projections. The impact of different conservation program measures reduces the per capita
demand incrementally by year depending upon the proposed implementation schedule. Care has
been taken to properly assign program impacts and to avoid double counting reductions.
Baseline: Demand Forecast Without Conservation Program
The baseline forecast represents a projection without any water conservation program. This
forecast provides a way to examine the impacts of the current conservation program and the
recommended expanded program against a hypothetical baseline without conservation. The
forecast includes anticipated changes in growth rates based on current planning projections.
Growth rates are expected to gradually decline over the next couple of decades as the City
approaches build-out. The baseline forecast includes the following assumptions (many of which
are included in the Level 1 and Level 2 forecasts as well):
x The Projected Service Area includes the City’s current utility service area plus some of
the new growth in the UGA that is not already served by the surrounding water districts
that the City plans to serve.
x The demand forecast is based on 153 gpcd at the beginning of the 13 year planning
period (2008-2020); plus large contractual demands increasing from 4,010 ac-ft in 2005
to 6,476 ac-ft in 2020 during the projected period.
Water Conservation Plan 31 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
x The demand forecast includes the assumption of 6% losses in the treated water system.
x This forecast does not include the impacts of an ongoing water conservation program.
This baseline provides a way to show the impact and potential savings of the current
program.
Level 1: Current Program
Fort Collins Utilities’ current water conservation program is broad-based and designed to reduce
demand in most customer sectors. Key elements of the current program include: public education
and information, an increasing block rate billing structure and seasonal rates for commercial
customers, rebates for efficient residential clothes washers, an innovative zero-interest loan
program, irrigation audits, several ordinances, and a utility water loss detection program. A
detailed description of the current programs is provided earlier in this report.
The Level 1 current conservation program will save an estimated 1,000 acre-feet if continued at
the same level through the planning period to 2020.1
Level 2: Recommended New Program
The Level 2 program includes all elements from the current program and the following
additional program measures. The Level 2 conservation program will save an estimated 2,300
acre-feet if continued at the same level through the planning period to 2020. See Table 16 for an
overview of the recommended program, including current and new measures.
The following new conservation measures are included in the Level 2 program. Program costs
and savings estimates are presented in Table 12. These measures are planned to be phased in
over three years.
Education and Public Information
Public information campaign expansion – This measure would increase the amount of
outreach to customers through print and radio advertising, more bus benches and other venues
for increased visibility of water conservation messages. Efforts may include partnerships with
home builders, local nurseries, Colorado State University, regional water suppliers and/or others.
Water conservation recognition awards – Residential and commercial customers would be
recognized for their water conservation efforts.
Water Rates and Usage Information
Online access to water use history – Customers who have online access to their water bills can
track and compare their monthly and seasonal water use. This program will be implemented
along with online bill payments.
Online water use calculator – A water use calculator can provide feedback to customers about
how efficiently they are using water. Customers will be able to customize the calculator with
their household parameters and historic water consumption.
1 These savings estimates do not include the impact of the Fort Collins increasing block and seasonal water rate
structure. Rate structure impacts were not evaluated in the preparation of this plan.
Water Conservation Plan 32 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Fixtures and Appliances – Residential
High efficiency toilet rebates – High Efficiency Toilets (HETs) are typically dual flush or
pressure assisted models that use an average of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less. Some HETs
use only 1 gallon per flush and have passed tests for effective waste removal. Performance tests
for these products are now available and there are many HET models that perform as well or
better than standard 1.6 gpf fixtures. This program would offer a $50 rebate for the purchase and
installation of an HET toilet.
Low income retrofit program – This program will provide low income single- and multi-
family households with toilet, showerhead and faucet aerator retrofits. It is envisioned that all
equipment will be provided and installed free of charge to the customer. This program may be
administered as part of the City’s REACH and LEAP weatherization programs.
Zero-interest loan program expansion – Fort Collins currently offers zero interest loans to
customers for replacing aging water service lines and purchasing high-efficiency clothes
washers. This would expand the loan program to possibly include high efficiency toilets, smart
irrigation controls, Xeriscape and/or other technologies as appropriate.
Research: Water end use study for homes – This measure would include a survey of the City
to determine how water is being used in homes, including gallons per flush of toilets. It would
also track water usage for irrigating landscapes. This information would help to target programs
appropriately to have a greater impact on water use.
Outdoor Efficiency – Landscapes and Irrigation
Xeriscape design clinics – This program would offer homeowners an educational program and
one-on-one landscape design assistance from a professional. Customers would pay a fee to
participate.
Irrigation technology rebates – One of the most promising new technologies for water
conservation with automatic irrigation systems is “smart control”. These controllers use
prevailing weather conditions or soil moisture measurements to automatically adjust irrigation
applications to meet the real-time water needs of the plants. This equipment is more expensive
than conventional irrigation control and this program would offer rebates to customers ranging
from $50-150 (depending upon the product and number of irrigation zones impacted). The
average rebate amount is estimated to be $85.
Large HOA irrigation efficiency grants – This program would offer HOAs with large
landscapes a grant averaging $1,300 per customer for the purpose of improving irrigation
efficiency through improved distribution uniformity, leak repair, and weather-based scheduling.
This program would be tied directly to Fort Collins Utilities’ current irrigation audit program.
Five large HOA customers per year would be targeted.
Research: Determine irrigated area for lots – This measure would use GIS and other
technologies to determine the square feet of irrigated area for each City lot. This information
would help in providing water budgets and efficiency reports to customers.
Fixtures and Appliances – Commercial, Industrial, & Institutional
CII facility audit program expansion – This measure would hire contract labor to perform
more complex assessments than our current program at industrial facilities.
Water Conservation Plan 33 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Commercial clothes washer rebates – This program will offer rebates for the purchase of water
(and energy) efficient clothes washers for the commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII)
sector. Although commercial customers can currently apply for rebates for residential washers,
this program would include coin-operated and other commercial washers.
Commercial high-efficiency toilet and urinal rebates – Similar to the residential HET
incentive described earlier, this program expands the rebate offer to commercial customers and
also includes efficient urinals. Savings are estimated to be comparable to residential installations.
Financial incentives for commercial water-saving upgrades – This program aims to overcome
barriers to implementing water efficiency upgrades in the CII sector (e.g. cooling tower
conductivity control, leak detection and repair, fixture replacement, etc.). Customers would
submit a proposal for improvements and estimated water savings. Incentives would be based on
the amount of documented saved water.
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution – Restaurants and commercial food service
operators use pre-rinse spray valves to rinse trays of dishes prior to washing them in a large
commercial dishwasher. Historically these valves have flowed at anywhere from 3 to 10 gallons
per minute (gpm). New high-efficiency spray valves use 1.6 gpm or less and utilize venturi valve
technology to ensure a high-pressure spray with less water. Distribution programs of pre-rinse
spray valves have been a success in numerous water districts in California, Washington, and
Colorado. New spray valves cost less than $40 each. Most utilities have simply given these
devices away and many have installed them as well to ensure they are utilized. Satisfaction
surveys have shown that customers prefer the new valves.
Regulatory Measures
Landscape and irrigation standards update – In 1994, City Council adopted landscape and
irrigation standards for water conservation. With revisions to these standards, water efficiency
can be improved. An interdepartmental team, along with outside professionals, would review the
current documents and consider appropriate revisions. The new standards may include a
provision for dedicated irrigation taps for large landscapes, irrigation system efficiency
requirements and/or limiting turf in narrow strips, among other measures. These new standards
may result in the need to hire an additional FTE for compliance and outreach.
Operational Measures
Utility water loss program enhancement – This measure would change the methodology of the
City’s current water loss program by implementing the new industry standard, the IWA/AWWA
water loss methodology. This new methodology offers a new set of tools for quantifying water
loss in a utility. The IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method is effective because it features sound,
consistent definitions for the major forms of water consumption and water loss encountered in
drinking water utilities. It also has a set of rational performance indicators that evaluate utilities
on system-specific features such as the average pressure in the distribution system and miles of
water main. Once implemented, this method can be used to track and assess water loss over time
and to develop effective tools for reducing real and apparent losses. The goal of this effort will
be to reduce what is currently described as unaccounted for water from 6 percent per year to 5
percent per year by 2026. However it should be understood that the results of changing
methodologies are uncertain. The impacts for Fort Collins could be larger or smaller than
estimated here. Furthermore it is uncertain what budget is required to implement the new
Water Conservation Plan 34 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
methodology. Fort Collins currently budgets $70,000 per year for leak detection and water loss
control. For the purposes of this plan, a one time cost of $200,000 has been allotted for
implementing the new IWA/AWWA methodology in the first year. It is anticipated that these
costs could go back down to $70,000 after the initial audit is complete, but initial outlay
requirements are not fully known.
Water conservation upgrades at City facilities – One of the goals of the City’s conservation
program is to demonstrate a water conservation effort. This measure would provide upgrades of
water-efficient indoor fixtures and sprinkler system equipment at City facilities.
Water Conservation Plan 35 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 12: Level 2 new measures - estimated costs and water savings
Note: Some staff labor will be absorbed within existing programs. All measures do not have quantified water savings.
Program/Measure New
FTE
Labor
Cost
$/
Customer
(i.e.
rebate)
# of
Customers
Impacted
(or rebates)
Annual
program/
measure
cost
Total annual
cost (labor &
program
costs)
Anticipated
annual water
savings in
gallons
Annual
Savings
(AF)
Cost of
Saved
Water
($/AF)
Implementation
Difficulty
(1 = easy,
5 = difficult)
Education and Public Information
Public information campaign expansion 0.1 $10,000 N/A N/A $10,000 $20,000 750,000 2.3 $8,689 2
Water conservation recognition awards 0.05 $5,000 N/A N/A $1,000 $6,000 Unknown 2
Water Rates and Usage Information
Online access to water history 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown 2
Online water use calculator 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown 1
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances -
Residential
High efficiency toilet rebates 0.1 $10,000 $50 1,000 $50,000 $60,000 9,000,000 27.6 $1,991 2
Low income retrofit program 0.05 $5,000 $400 25 $10,000 $15,000 1,250,000 3.8 $3,910 3
Zero-interest loan program expansion 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 500,000 1.5 $0 2
Research: Water end use study for homes 0.05 $5,000 N/A N/A $50,000 $55,000 0 0 0 3
Outdoor Efficiency – Landscapes &
Irrigation
Xeriscape design clinics 0.05 $5,000 $50 75 $3,750 $8,750 750,000 2.3 $3,801 2
Irrigation technology rebates 0.1 $10,000 $85 175 $14,875 $24,875 3,500,000 10.7 $2,316 3
Large HOA irrigation efficiency grants 0.05 $5,000 $1,300 5 $6,500 $11,500 1,250,000 3.8 $2,998 2
Research: Determine irrigated area for lots 0.05 $5,000 $50,000 $55,000 0 0 3
Indoor Fixtures & Appliances – CII
CII facility audit program expansion 0.4 $40,000 N/A 40 $10,000 $50,000 1,000,000 3.1 $4,887 3
Commercial clothes washer rebates 0 0 $100 10 $1,000 $1,000 90,000 0.3 $3,620 3
Commercial toilet and urinal rebates 0.1 $10,000 $50 1,000 $50,000 $60,000 1,800,000 5.5 $2,715 2
Financial incentives for commercial water-
Program/Measure New
FTE
Labor
Cost
$/
Customer
(i.e.
rebate)
# of
Customers
Impacted
(or rebates)
Annual
program/
measure
cost
Total annual
cost (labor &
program
costs)
Anticipated
annual water
savings in
gallons
Annual
Savings
(AF)
Cost of
Saved
Water
($/AF)
Implementation
Difficulty
(1 = easy,
5 = difficult)
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution 0.1 $10,000 $100 50 $5,000 $15,000 650,000 2.0 $7,500 2
Regulatory Measures
Landscape and irrigation standards update 1 $100,000 N/A N/A $10,000 $110,000 5,000,000 15.3 $7,168 3
Operational Measures
Utility water loss program enhancement 0 0 N/A N/A $70,000 $70,000 4,890,000 15 $4,666 4
Water conservation upgrades at City
facilities (indoor & outdoor) 0.05 $5,000 N/A N/A $40,000 $45,000 1,500,000 4.6 $9,782 2
Water Conservation Plan 37 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Demand Forecasts
Demand forecasts were prepared for each of the scenarios described above including the
Baseline (no conservation) scenario. Results are shown in Figure 6. Three demand forecasts are
included in Figure 6 and the forecasting methodology is discussed below.
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Annual Demand (AF)
Historic Baseline Level 1 Current Level 2 Recommended
Historic Demand Forecast Future Demand
Figure 6: Demand forecasts under different conservation scenarios
Baseline – Without Conservation (blue line)
2020 demand = 31,800 Ac-ft
2020 per capita use = 153 gpcd (not including contractual demands)
Estimated change from 2003-2007 average per capita (155 gpcd) = 1.3% reduction
This forecast represents a baseline projection without any water conservation program. This
forecast provides a way to examine the impacts of the current conservation program. The
forecast includes anticipated changes in growth rates based on current planning projections.
More accelerated growth occurs in the next 10 years and it then slows approaching build out.
This approach assumes that all new customers will essentially have demands that are identical to
the existing customer base and it further assumes that no efficiency improvements will be made
by the current customer base. This methodology likely over-estimates future demand. The
Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires all toilets sold in the U.S. be 1.6 gallons per flush or less and
also sets maximum flow rate standards for showerheads and faucets. New U.S. Department of
Energy standards for clothes washers will provide for market transformation to more water
efficient machines over the next 10-20 years. These policies essentially assure that new
Water Conservation Plan 38 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
customers will use less water indoors than existing customers and that existing customers will
likely become more water efficient over time through the natural replacement of old fixtures and
appliances. Barring the widespread adoption of a new water consuming technology that could
increase per capita demand or an unexpected population surge, the assumptions of this
forecasting methodology could slightly overestimate future demand in Fort Collins given the
current conservation program.
Given the recent changes in per capita demand in Fort Collins resulting from the drought of
2002, the assumptions used in this forecast are reasonable. Consequently, the estimated impacts
of the conservation programs will be more modest than they would have been had per capita use
not changed so dramatically already. It is assumed that sizeable portions of the easy conservation
savings have already been achieved. Historic demand is also shown in Figure 6 to illustrate this
point.
Level 1 - Current Conservation Program (green line)
Forecast 2020 demand = 30,800 Ac-ft
Forecast water savings in 2020 = 1,000 Ac-ft
Estimated 2020 per capita use = 147 gpcd (not including contractual demands)
Estimated reduction from 2003-2007 average per capita (155 gpcd) = 5.2%
This forecast projects demand in Fort Collins assuming the current conservation program
(described earlier in this document) continues at a similar funding level (adjusted for inflation).
Level 2 – Recommended New Program (red line)
Forecast 2020 demand = 29,500 Ac-ft
Forecast water savings in 2,300 = Ac-ft
2020 per capita use = 139 gpcd (not including contractual demands)
Estimated reduction from 2003-2007 average per capita (155 gpcd) = 10.3%
This forecast projects demand in Fort Collins assuming the Level 2 conservation program
(described earlier in this document) is fully implemented starting in 2008.
Summary of Forecast Demands
Summaries of the demand forecasts presented above are presented in Table 13 and Table 14.
Demand and savings in acre-feet are shown in Table 13. Forecast per capita demands and
savings percentages are shown in Table 14. The recommended program will save an estimated
2,300 Ac-ft/year by 2020. Under this scenario, per capita demand will be reduced to 139 gpcd.
Table 15 provides the percent of the estimated 2020 attributable to indoor measures, outdoor
measures, and utility water loss control.
Water Conservation Plan 39 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 13: Summary of forecast demand and savings (acre-feet per year)
Average Use
2020 Forecast
Demand
Savings vs.
Pre-2002 Use
Savings vs.
Baseline Use
Forecast (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year) (Ac-ft/year)
Pre-2002
(1998-2001) 34,000 39,700 N/A N/A
Baseline
(2003-2007) 27,500 31,800 7,900 N/A
Current Program 30,800 8,900 1,000
Recommended
Program 29,500 10,200 2,300
Table 14: Summary of forecast demand and savings (gallons per capita per day)
Average Use
2020 Forecast
Demand
Savings vs.
Pre-2002 Use
Savings vs.
Baseline Use
Forecast (gpcd) (gpcd) (%) (%)
Pre-2002
(1998-2001) 200 200 0% N/A
Baseline
(2003-2007) 155 153 -23.5% -1.3%
Current Program 147 -26.5% -5.2%
Recommended
Program 139 -30.5% -10.3%
Table 15: Breakdown of 2020 water savings by category
Indoor Outdoor
Water Loss
Control Total
Current Program 55.6% 35.4% 9.0% 100.0%
Recommended Program 50.5% 32.8% 16.7% 100.0%
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION
PROGRAM
The recommended conservation program will be implemented over a three year period. Table 16
shows the recommended program, including current and new measures. The table also shows
which customer classes will be impacted, whether a measure affects indoor or outdoor use, the
type of measure, and if it’s an existing or new measure.
Water Conservation Plan 40 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Table 16: Conservation measures for recommended program
Customers Water Use Type of
Measure
Existing or
Measure New
RSF RMF CII City Indoor Outdoor Comm DSM Exist New
Education and Public Information
Conservation public information campaign XXXXX XX X
Public information campaign expansion XXXXX XX X
Adult education programs XX X XX X
Business environmental programs XX X XX X
School education programs XX X XX X
Conservation giveaways XX X XX X
Water conservation awards XXXXX XX X
Water Rates and Usage Information
Increasing block rate – Res. X X X X
Seasonal rates – Comm. & MF XXXX X X
Online access to water history XXX X XX X
Online water use calculator X X XX X
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances -
Residential
Residential clothes washer rebates XX X X X
High efficiency toilet rebates XX X X X
Dishwasher rebates XX X X X
Low income retrofit program X X X X
Zero-interest loans for conservation X X X X
Zero-interest loan program expansion X X XX X
Research: Water end use study X X XX X
Outdoor Efficiency - Landscapes and
Irrigation
Sprinkler system audits XX X X
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden XXXX XX X
Xeriscape design clinics XX XX X
Irrigation technology rebates XXX XXX
Large HOA irrigation efficiency grants X XXX
Raw water for irrigation at parks, cemeteries
and golf courses
X X X
Research: Determine irrigated area for lots XXXX XX X
Indoor Fixtures and Appliances - Comm.,
Indust., Institutional (CII)
CII facility audits X X XX X
Facility audit program expansion X X XX X
Commercial clothes washer rebates X X X X
Commercial toilet and urinal rebates X X X X
Water Conservation Plan 41 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Customers Water Use Type of
Measure
Existing or
Measure New
RSF RMF CII City Indoor Outdoor Comm DSM Exist New
Financial incentives for commercial water-
saving upgrades
X X XXX
Hotel and restaurant conservation materials X X X X
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution X X X X
Water Reuse Systems
Large customer reuse XXX X X
Backwash recycling at water treatment facility X X X
Regulatory Measures
Wasting water ordinance X XXXX X X
Restrictive covenants ordinance XX X X
Soil amendment ordinance X XXX X X
Water Shortage Response Plan X XXXX X X
Landscape & irrigation standards for new
development
XXX XX X
Landscape & irrigation standards update X XXX XX X
Operational Measures
Utility water loss program X X X
Water loss program enhancement X X X
Water conservation upgrades at City LEED
buildings
X X XX X
Water conservation upgrades at City facilities X X XXX
Key:
RSF – Residential Single Family
RMF – Residential Multi-family
CII – Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
City – City government
Indoor – effects indoor water use
Outdoor – effects outdoor water use
Comm – Community water conservation program
DSM – demand-side management measure
Exist – existing measure
New – new measure
Water Conservation Plan 42 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Ongoing Monitoring
Fort Collins Utilities will monitor implementation and impacts of the conservation plan on a
regular basis. Regular demand monitoring will provide information on water use and progress
toward to the stated conservation goals. Utilities staff will continue to produce an annual report
on the conservation program that includes a detailed description of plan implementation as well
as the measured impacts on usage.
Plan Refinement
Fort Collins Utilities understands that the conservation plan and program will need regular
review and refinement to ensure that the goals are met. As has been done since the program’s
inception in 1977, adjustments to the program will be made as warranted due to new technology
or programs becoming outdated. A complete formal review and revision of the conservation plan
will be completed five years after adoption.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Colorado Statutes Title 37 Water and Irrigation – Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
and Compacts 37-60-126 requires a state approved water conservation plan for covered entities
as a condition of seeking financial assistance from the CWCB. Key planning requirements of the
statute include the following items:
1. Consideration of specific conservation measures and programs including – (I) fixtures
and appliances; (II) water-wise landscapes; (III) CII measures; (IV) water reuse systems;
(V) water loss and system leakage; (VI) information and education; (VII) conservation
oriented rate structure; (VIII) technical assistance; (IX) regulatory measures; (X)
incentives and rebates.
2. Role of conservation in the entity’s supply planning.
3. Plan implementation, monitoring, review and revision.
4. Future review of plan within 7 years.
5. Estimated savings from previous conservation efforts as well as estimates from
implementation of current plan.
6. A 60-day minimum public comment period.
This section of the plan details Fort Collins’ compliance with this statute.
Fort Collins Compliance
Fort Collins Utilities developed this conservation plan to achieve full compliance with the
Colorado statute. Each element of compliance is documented below.
1. Consideration of specific conservation measures -
x Fixture and appliances – Current program includes residential clothes washer rebates;
faucet aerator, and showerhead distribution. Level 2 program includes residential HET
toilet incentives, commercial toilet and urinal incentives, restaurant pre-rinse spray valve
distribution.
x Water wise landscape – Current program includes sprinkler system audits.
Recommended program includes expanded audits, Xeriscape design clinics, irrigation
Water Conservation Plan 43 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
technology rebates. HOA irrigation efficiency grants, and research to measure irrigated
areas.
(III) CII measures – Current program includes a business program series and facility
water audits. Level 2 program includes distribution of pre-rinse rinse spray valves in
restaurants, incentives for CII efficiency upgrades, and commercial toilet and urinal
rebates.
(IV) Water reuse systems – Current program includes reuse water for cooling and
irrigation at the local power plant; backwash recycling at the water treatment facility.
Additional small scale reuse systems were found either not cost effective for Fort Collins
or were not compliant with the Utilities’ water rights holdings.
(V) Water loss and system leakage reduction – Current program includes a utility water
loss reduction program. Fort Collins has included implementation of the IWA/AWWA
water loss methodology in Level 2.
(VI) Information and public education – Current program includes a local conservation
public information campaign; school education program; business environmental series;
adult education programs. Level 2 program includes an expanded public information
campaign with new partnership efforts.
(VII) Water rate structure – Current program includes a three-tier increasing block rate
structure for residential; seasonal rates for commercial customers. Level 2 program
includes online access to water use history and an online water use calculator.
(VIII) Regulatory measures – Current program includes requirement for rain shutoff
devices for new commercial development; water waste ordinance; landscape and
irrigation standards for new development; restrictive covenants ordinance; soil
amendment ordinance for new development. Level 2 program includes required
dedication irrigation tap for new large landscapes and an update of the City’s landscape
and irrigation standards.
(IX) Incentives – A broad range of incentive and rebate programs are included in the
measures described above.
2. Role of conservation in Fort Collins supply planning. Fort Collins takes water conservation
seriously and has had a staff position for dedicated to water conservation since 1977.
Resolution 2003-104, a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, was adopted by City
Council in September 2003. The resolution provides general criteria for decisions regarding
water supply projects, acquisition of water rights and demand management measures.
3. Plan implementation, monitoring, review and revision. Fort Collins has developed a
specific plan implementation program along with monitoring mechanisms and scheduled
review and revisions. Details of this effort are described in the preceding section of this
document.
4. Future review of plan within seven years. Fort Collins Utilities intends to review and update
the water conservation every five years. The next review is scheduled to occur in 2012.
5. Estimated savings from previous conservation efforts and current plan. The Fort Collins
water conservation program has been active since 1977. Since 1994 weather normalized per
capita demand has been reduced by 25 percent. Not all of this reduction can be fairly
Water Conservation Plan 44 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
attributed to the conservation program (the 2002 drought had a measurable impact), but the
data show a distinct water savings trend. Savings from the conservation program
recommended in this plan are estimated to be an additional 10.3 percent by 2020.
6. Public comment period. A public review of the conservation plan took place from October 8
to December 7, 2007. Thirty-four comments were received and revisions were made to the
plan in response to the comments.
Water Conservation Plan 45 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water
Efficiency
Plan
DRAFT
OCTOBER
2015
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
i
3.4
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... v
Acronym List .......................................................................................................................................
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Profile of Existing Water Supply System ...................................................................................2
1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply System .................................................................................. 4
1.2 Water Supply Reliability ................................................................................................................ 8
1.3 Supply-side Limitations and Future Needs ................................................................................... 9
2.0 Profile of Water Demand and Historical Demand Management .............................................. 11
2.1 Demographics and Key Characteristics of the Service Area ....................................................... 11
2.2 Historical Water Demands .......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Past and Current Demand Management Activities .................................................................... 18
2.4 Demand Forecasts....................................................................................................................... 20
3.0 Integrated Water Supply and Demand Management Planning ............................................... 23
3.1 Water Efficiency and Water Supply Planning ............................................................................. 23
3.2 Water Efficiency Goals ................................................................................................................ 26
4.0 Selection of Water Efficiency Activities .................................................................................. 29
4.1 Summary of Selection Process .................................................................................................... 29
5.0 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................... 34
5.1 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 35
Glossary........................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A: Materials related to Chapter 1 ..................................................................................... 40
Appendix B: Materials related to Chapter 2 ...................................................................................... 42
3.4
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
iii
Appendix C: Materials related to Chapter 3 ...................................................................................... 48
3.4
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Raw Water Yield in 2014 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 1.2 Water Supply Limitations and Future Need ................................................................................................... 9
Table 2.1 Treated Water Use by Customer Category .................................................................................................. 14
Table 2.2 System Water Loss Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2.3 List of Current Water Conservation Activities .............................................................................................. 19
Table 4.1 Areas of Opportunity ................................................................................................................................... 31
3.4
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Water Service Area and surrounding Water District boundaries ................................................................ 3
Figure 1.2 City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply System Map ................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.1 Treated water use and population ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.2 Average daily treated water demand ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.3 Water use by customer category, 2010-2014 average ............................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4 Water use in gallons per capita per day and weather data ........................................................................ 16
Figure 2.5 Estimated indoor and outdoor use, 2010-2014 average ............................................................................ 17
Figure 2.6 Treated water demand, historic planning levels, and population ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3.1 Water efficiency goals, demand and population ........................................................................................ 27
Figure 3.2 Historic GPCD and New Conservation Goal ................................................................................................ 28
3.4
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
ACRONYM LIST
AF Acre Foot (equals 325,851 gallons)
AMFC Advanced Meter Fort Collins
BFO Budgeting for Outcomes
BMP Best management practice(s)
C-BT Colorado-Big Thompson
CAP Climate Action Plan
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
ELCO East Larimer County Water District
FCLWD Fort Collins - Loveland Water District
GMA Growth management area
GPCD gallons per capita per day
LCU Large commercial users
MG Million gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
NCWCD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPIC North Poudre Irrigation Company
PRPA Platte River Power Authority
RWR Raw water requirement; requirement to provide water for any new development that
occurs within the Utilities water service area
SWSI Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Supply Initiative
TAZ Traffic analysis zone
WEP TAG Water efficiency plan technical advisory group
WSDMP Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, 2012
WSSC Water Supply and Storage Company
WTF Water Treatment facility
WFCWD West Fort Collins Water District
WQA Winter quarterly average (Dec, Jan and Feb use)
3.4
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Utilities has a strong commitment to ensure the efficient use of its natural
resources. The Utilities’ Water Conservation Program is nearly 40 years in the making and has resulted in
lower per capita water use, even as population has grown significantly. These programs have benefited
the Utilities by delaying or avoiding significant capital costs and have benefited customers through
reduced water bills. The additional benefits to the City and the community include development of a
conservation ethic, demonstration of a commitment to sustainability, support of economic health,
enhanced resilience during drought periods, preparation for potential effects of climate change, and
provision of water for other beneficial purposes such as agriculture, ecosystem services, recreation, and
aesthetics.
This Water Efficiency Plan is an update to the Water Conservation Plan approved by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board in 2010. The 2010 Plan set a goal of 140 gallon per capita per day (gpcd) by the year
2020. This updated Plan proposes a new goal of 130 gpcd by 2030. The gpcd in 2014, normalized to
account for weather, was 143; for reference, the normalized gpcd in 2001 was 198.
Efficiency and Conservation activities
Fort Collins Utilities has a robust conservation program with activities that touch on many different uses
and affect the entire community. We will continue to build on existing programs and develop new
approaches to conservation. Programs will be evaluated for effectiveness in water efficiency, customer
service, and technical excellence. Our overall mission is to cultivate a water efficient, adaptive, and
knowledgeable customer base through education and cost-effective water efficiency programs while
supporting the City’s Strategic Plan and its social, environmental, and economic health.
We have identified five key areas of opportunity for greater water efficiency:
x Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
x Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
x Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
x Expand commercial and industrial strategies
x Increase community water literacy
Our actions will be guided by the following implementation principles:
x Employ sophisticated data-driven processes and decision-making
x Coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City
x Cultivate new and bolster existing community and statewide partnerships
Plan Development Process
The content and organization of this plan was developed using the Colorado Water Conservation
Board’s municipal water efficiency plan guidance document, as it is a state requirement to submit an
updated Plan every 7 years. This plan was developed with input from the community and a technical
advisory group: Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory Group (WEP TAG). The WEP TAG included
Utilities and City staff as well as Water Board members. The next steps include a 60-day public comment
period, a revision period, return to City Council for resolution, development of supplemental supporting
documentation to meet state requirements, and ultimately submittal to the CWCB in 2017.
3.4
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2
1.0 PROFILE OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The City of Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of Denver in Larimer County, nestled between the Rocky
Mountains foothills and the Eastern Plains of Colorado. Horsetooth Reservoir borders Fort Collins to the
west and the Cache la Poudre River winds its way through north Fort Collins before reaching the South
Platte River to the east of Greeley, CO.
The City of Fort Collins Utilities service area boundaries for water do not perfectly match the Fort Collins
city limits. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) and East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
provide water to some areas within the city limits and will most likely serve additional city residents in
the future. Furthermore, Fort Collins Utilities provide water service to some customers beyond the city
limits; this is primarily northwest of Fort Collins, including providing wholesale water to West Fort Collins
Water District (WFCWD). Figure 1.1 shows the Utilities service area and the neighboring water district
services areas with respect to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the official city
limits.
Note that this Chapter contains an abbreviated set of information on the Water Supply System; for a
more detailed account, see the City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management (Policy)
Report (dated April 2014)1. The updated Policy, which was approved by City Council in late 2012, serves
as a guide for the Fort Collins Utilities to a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an
adequate, safe, and reliable supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community, and
2) managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with
the preferences of customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
1 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-supply-demand/
3.4
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
3
Figure 1.1: Water Service Area and surrounding Water District boundaries
3.4
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
4
1.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The Fort Collins Utilities’ water sources are surface supplies. The Utilities water supplies come from two
major systems: the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) Basin and the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT)
Project, often referred to as “Horsetooth Water”.2 The City’s water supply and treatment system
consists of several key facilities, which are illustrated in Figure 1.2 and include the Poudre River
diversion structure and pipelines, Joe Wright Reservoir, Michigan Ditch, Horsetooth Reservoir, the
Water Treatment Facility, the Mulberry Reclamation Facility, and the Drake Reclamation Facility.3 Figure
1.2 includes Halligan Reservoir, which is currently owned by Fort Collins Utilities but operated by the
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). A discussion of the Halligan Water Supply Storage Project is
located in the “Storage” portion of the System Reliability section below. The City’s Water system
contains approximately 540 miles of pipeline and 34,298 connections. In addition to treated water, the
City diverts about 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet of raw water to irrigate City parks, golf courses, a cemetery,
greenbelt areas, some school grounds, and for the purposes of meeting some contractual raw water
delivery obligations. In 2014, the City of Fort Collins Utilities supplied 7.4 billion gallons of water to
approximately 130,200 people.
2 Horsetooth Reservoir borders the City of Fort Collins and is an East Slope terminal reservoir in the C-BT system.
For more information on the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which is operated and maintained by Northern
Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, please see: http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/C-
BTProject.aspx
3 The Water Treatment Facility chemically treats up to 87 MGD (million gallons per day). The Mulberry Water
Reclamation Facility employs physical, biological, and chemical processes to treat up to 6 MGD. The Drake Water
Reclamation Facility employs similar processes and treats up to 23 MGD.
3.4
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
5
Figure 1.2 City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply System Map
3.4
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
6
From the beginning of the City of Fort Collins Water Utility in the 1880s up to the early 1960s, the City
depended primarily on direct flow rights to the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) to satisfy its water
demands. The first water right was obtained in 1889 and four other senior direct flow rights were
obtained in the early 1900s; these currently allow the Utilities to divert an average of 11,300 acre-feet of
raw water annually. In the late 1950s, the Utilities acquired its first 6,000 units of Colorado-Big
Thompson (C-BT) Project water. To date, the Utilities owns about 18,855 units of CB-T water. In addition
to these two major sources of water, the Utilities began to acquire shares of several local irrigation
company stocks starting in the 1960s, in part to expand the Utilities’ water supply portfolio and in part
as developers turned over the water rights from lands they were building over in order to satisfy the raw
water requirements for new development.
Table 1.1 shows the average annual yield of the Utilities’ various water sources. For more detailed
information on each supply source, see Appendix A. The Utilities’ average annual raw water yield as of
2014 is approximately 75,245 acre-feet, but the actual treatable average annual yield is closer to 55,000
acre-feet per year. The treatable water right yield is lower due to legal constraints, such as agricultural
rights that have not been converted for municipal use, ditch losses, water right volumetric limitations
and return flow obligations. The Utilities’ modeling has shown that the current firm yield of its system is
approximately 31,000 acre-feet per year.4 During the summer months, however, much of the Utilities’
water rights yield more water than the demands of the service area customers. Both the raw water yield
and treatable yield are reduced in dry years, requiring more storage water to meet demands.
Table 1.1 Raw Water Yield in 2014
Source acre-feet
Poudre River Direct Flow 11,300
Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch 5,500
Northern Water (CBT) 14,330
North Poudre Irrigation Company5 19,850
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company 7,760
PRPA Reuse Plan 2,310
Southside Ditches6 10,760
Water Supply and Storage Company 2,240
Miscellaneous7 1,195
Average Raw Yield Total 75,245
Note: Yields are the approximate average annual yields
and do not reflect dry years and other constraints of the
system.
4 This assumes a 1-in-50 year drought; Firm yield is commonly determined by calculating the maximum constant
annual demand (quantity of water) that can be met with the available supply during a specified multi-year
hydrologic period.
5 These sources are only partially available for municipal use.
6 The Southside ditches refer to Arthur, Larimer No. 2, New Mercer, and Warren Lake irrigation companies.
7 These are relatively small contributors to the overall raw yield and include shares in Chaffee Ditch, Boxelder
Irrigation Ditch Company, Lake Canal Company, Louden Irrigating Canal and Reservoir Company.
3.4
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
7
Reusable Supplies:
An important part of the City’s water supplies are sources that are reusable. Typically, this is water that
is imported from another basin or comes from specific in-basin sources that may be totally consumed
through succession of identified uses. For Fort Collins, this includes much of the Michigan Ditch and Joe
Wright Reservoir water and portions of the Southside Ditches water that has been converted from
agricultural use to municipal use.
A sizeable portion of the Utilities treated water supplies are reusable.8 Much of this is used as part of a
Reuse Plan which involves the City, Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) and Platte River Power
Authority (PRPA) 9. Reusable sources owned by the City and WSSC are used Utilities’ customers and the
reusable effluent is used by PRPA at their Rawhide Power Plant facility. In turn, PRPA provides Windy
Gap water to the City.
Raw Water Requirements:
Developers are required to provide water for any new development that occurs within the Utilities
water service area. The amount is determined by the Utilities; the developer is assessed a raw water
requirement (RWR) for any new development that occurs within the service area. This practice originally
began in the 1960s when two acre-feet per acre of land developed was required. Because water use
varied considerably depending on the type of use for any given area, a study was done in 1983-84 to
develop the existing method of assessing the RWRs, which attempts to more closely assess the
requirements based on actual use.
The formula for residential development considers the density, and an estimate of indoor and outdoor
use. The RWR is calculated by multiplying the water use estimate by a “water supply factor” that is used
to reflect the variability in supply and demand from year to year as well as other unaccounted for water
use.10 Non-residential requirements are based on tap size. Water use is analyzed for all non-residential
customers for a given tap size and the requirements are based on those results. Since there is a lot of
variability within each tap size, a raw water surcharge is assessed for any annual use exceeding an
annual allotment.11
Developers and builders may satisfy the RWR by either turning over water rights acceptable to the City
or paying cash in-lieu-of the water rights. The City uses in-lieu payments to purchase additional water
rights or implement other means of increasing the firm yield of the Utilities’ water supply, such as
developing storage capacity. The in-lieu fee is evaluated and, if needed, revised to reflect the costs
associated with developing the required water supplies (e.g., market price of water rights).
8 This refers to the total amount of water used, not to the total amount of water feasibly available in a given year.
9 2012 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2014 Report).
10 The current water supply factor is 1.92. This equation is used to determine the residential RWR is as follows:
RWR = 1.92 x [(.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres)]
11 Requirements vary from .90 acre-feet for a 3/4 inch meter to 9.60 acre-feet for a 2-inch meter. For larger
meters, the RWR is based on an estimate of water use.
3.4
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
8
1.2 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Fort Collins Utilities is responsible for providing an adequate and reliable supply of water to its
customers. The planning criteria describe the water demand that can be reliably served under specified
drought conditions and the margin of safety the Utilities should have in place to address unforeseen
circumstances.12 The three main planning criteria used to develop the City’s water supply system are 1)
the drought criterion, 2) the storage reserve factor and, 3) the planning demand level. These criteria
determine the amount of water supplies and facilities the Utilities needs (e.g., the amount of storage
required) and should be somewhat conservative to account for inherent uncertainties in water supply
planning.
Drought Criterion
The drought criterion states that in a 1-in-50 year drought the Utilities should be able to meet the
planning demand level. This is an important criterion because not only will demands often be higher in
drought periods due to less precipitation, water supply systems generally will also yield less water. The
Utilities has used a 1-in-50 year drought criterion since the original 1988 Water Supply Policy.
Storage Reserve Factor
A storage reserve factor is a criterion to have a certain percent of annual demand in storage through the
drought criterion (1-in-50 year drought). This storage reserve provides a short-term supply to address
emergency situations, such as pipeline shutdowns (which can and have occurred during drought
conditions). The Policy calls for a 20 percent storage reserve factor, which equates to about 3.5 months
of winter supplies or about 1.5 months of summer supplies.
Planning Demand Level
The planning demand level is the amount of demand the water supply system should be developed to
meet. Since acquiring water supplies takes many years, projecting future demands is required to
determine which supplies and/or facilities need to be acquired. The planning demand level is measured
in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and is used along with projected population and projected large
contractual use (LCU) needs to determine future demand levels; population projections will be discussed
in detail in Section 2.4. The planning demand level is set higher than current use and current water
conservation goals to account for uncertainties in water supply planning that might reduce the Utilities’
water supply yield. The current Water Supply and Demand Management Policy set 150 gpcd as the
planning demand level, which is the average of 2006-2011 water use.
Impacts of Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the Utilities’ supplies and/or the amount of
water required to maintain existing landscapes. These changes may include reduced snow pack, earlier
runoff, hotter and drier summers, and an increased recurrence of drought. A great deal of uncertainty
exists related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal water supply and demands. Current research indicates that changes in precipitation in this
12 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Report (dated April 2014; approved by City Council in later
2012).
3.4
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
9
area are uncertain but that temperatures will increase and therefore it is likely that runoff will come
earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may come more often as rain rather than snow,
and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes.
The Utilities’ water supply planning criteria and assumptions are conservative in part to account for
climate change based on the information to date. The City will continue to monitor climate change
information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply planning criteria and assumptions to ensure
future water supply reliability.
1.3 SUPPLY-SIDE LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE NEEDS
Table 1.2 lists the future water supply needs and challenges. The full use of the Utilities’ water rights in a
given year can be reduced by several physical and legal constraints. Legal challenges are related to
Colorado water laws and the administration of water rights. Some of the agricultural water rights owned
by the City are not available for use because the shares need to be changed in Water Court to municipal
use.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Supply Initiative (SWSI) predicts a significant gap
between water supplies and water demands along Colorado’s Front Range, starting in 2040 for the
Northern region of the South Platter River Basin.13 Fort Collins is a forward-thinking community and the
Utilities has identified water supply needed through 2065. Two key solutions to ensuring a reliable
supply system moving forward include storage development and water efficiency programs.
Table 1.2 Water Supply Limitations and Future Need
Future Need/Challenge Yes No
System is in a designated critical water supply
shortage area X
System experiences frequent water supply
shortages and/or supply emergencies X
System has substantial real or apparent water
losses X
Experiencing high rates of population and
demand growth X
Planning substantial improvements or
additions X
Increases to wastewater system capacity
anticipated X
Need additional drought reserves X
Drinking water quality issues X
13 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2011. Colorado’s Water Supply Future: Colorado Water Conservation Board 2010.
3.4
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
10
Storage Constraints
A primary physical constraint is the lack of storage capacity to manage and regulate the water rights
owned by the City. Additional water storage capacity is critically needed to increase the yield and
reliability of its water supply system. Operational storage is needed to meet return flow obligations
inherent with converted irrigation shares and provide other operational flexibility, which has recently
been met through the acquisition of Rigden Reservoir. Carryover storage is needed to capture water
during wetter years for use during drier years and also provide a storage reserve for unexpected
emergencies (e.g. a pipeline failure). Both types of storage are needed to increase the reliability and
redundancy desired to meet the water needs of our customers.
While the Utilities do have some year-to-year “carryover” storage capacity, much of this is already
allocated to meet return flow obligations and other contractual agreements. Northern Water does
include some carryover storage in the CB-T system; however, it is also almost entirely allocated to
meeting contractual obligations.14 While the City owns shares of several ditch companies that do have
storage, we do not have access to the storage systems. Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin that meets
the storage reserve would help diversify the City’s water supply system, which is currently highly reliant
on C-BT storage.
Planned Storage Improvements
In 2003 the City acquired Halligan Reservoir, located on the North Fork of the Poudre River
approximately 25 miles northwest of Fort Collins, for carryover and vulnerability storage. With plans for
its expansion, the City is currently going through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
permitting process, including an analysis of potential environmental impacts, other storage options, and
costs and benefits. In 2013, the City acquired an existing gravel pit storage facility located below the
Drake Water Reclamation Facility. The gravel pit, now Rigden Reservoir, has been enlarged to 1,900
acre feet and is being used for operational storage. The reservoir began operation in 2015 and will
increase the system’s firm yield.
14 Note that CB-T water is particularly valuable to the water supply portfolio because it can be stored within the C-
BT reservoir system for use any time within a given water year.
3.4
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
11
2.0 PROFILE OF WATER DEMAND AND HISTORICAL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City of Fort Collins city limits do not perfectly coincide with the Utilities water service area. The
information in Section 2.1 below describes the City of Fort Collins, rather than the service area, as the
city limits are how this type of information is collected by the City Planning Department, the U.S. Census,
and the American Community Survey. Information in Sections 2.2-2.4, however, will pertain to the
Utilities’ water service area.
2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SERVICE AREA
The City of Fort Collins is home to approximately 158,600 residents and 30,000 students as of 2015.15
The average household size is 2.37 people, the median age is about 29 years old, and about 27% of
households have at least one person under the age of 18. The average income is about $72,000. As of
the 2010 U.S. Census, about 55% of homes were owner-occupied, 57% of homes were single-family
detached residences, and the median home value was $247,800. About 11% of the housing stock is
estimated to be built prior to1960 and about 40% were built prior to 1980.16
The City of Fort Collins is home to two major public higher education institutions: Colorado State
University and Front Range Community College. Fort Collins was once home to a wide swath of
agricultural activity; however, much of this is now limited to the outskirts of the City or has moved
outside of the City entirely. Several high-tech industries call Fort Collins home, including Hewlett
Packard, Intel, Woodward Inc., and AMD, among others. In addition to the other major employers like
the City Government and the colleges, there has been an increase in the areas of clean energy,
bioscience, and agri-tech businesses. The City also enjoys a strong microbrewery industry alongside an
Anheuser-Busch Brewery.17
2.2 HISTORICAL WATER DEMANDS
Up until the early 2000s, the Utilities’ service area population growth was largely matched by an
increase in total water demands. Like many other Colorado communities, the 2002-03 drought spurred
the City of Fort Collins to rethink its water use. While the population continues to grow, water demands
have exhibited a downward trend, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. From 2001 to 2014, the service area
population increased by about 7% while the total treated water demand decreased by about 25%. Such
reductions are a combined result of Utilities’ customers being fully metered and adopting
tiered/seasonal rate structures by 2003, as well as the robust water conservation program and the
water conservation efforts by customers.
15 As of 2014, the Utilities’ service area provided treated water to about 130,200 residents.
16 This paragraph contains information about the City of Fort Collins from three sources: the City Planning
Department, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the 2013 American Community Survey.
17 The Fort Collins AB Brewery is home to the world-famous Budweiser Clydesdales West Coast Team.
3.4
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
12
Figure 2.1 Treated water use and population
Daily water demand varies considerably throughout the year. Water use is fairly consistent throughout
the winter months, then more than doubles in the summer months as customers increase use for
landscapes and other seasonal purposes (e.g. pools). Figure 2.2 illustrates a five-year average of the
daily treated water delivered from 2010-2014 along with details on the peak day for each year, which
highlights how variable water demands can be in any given year.
3.4
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
13
Figure 2.2 Average daily treated water demand
Fort Collins Utilities monitors treated water use by eight categories, as shown in Table 2.1. This table
reports the annual use, number of accounts, average monthly use and water use by account, as of 2014.
The majority of accounts are single-family residential accounts, however on a per account basis
commercial customers use the most water. Recall that since the Utilities’ water service area is different
than the City limits; Outside City Customers refer to customers outside of the city limits but who are
Utilities’ customers. West Fort Collins Water District receives wholesale treated water from the Utilities,
which is why they appear as one singular customer.
3.4
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
14
Table 2.1 Treated Water Use by Customer Category
2014
Customer Category Annual Water
Use (MG)*
Number of
Accounts
Average Monthly
Use (MG)*
Average
Annual Use per
Account (gal)*
Single-Family 2,142 26,930 178.5 79,536
Duplex 120 1,226 10 97,750
Multi-Family 970 2,240 80.8 432,934
Commercial 2,972 2,222 247.7 1,337,765
City Government 107 225 8.9 475,830
West Fort Collins WD 140 1 11.7 140,000,000
Outside City Customers 280 1,454 23.3 192,751
Total 6,731 34,298 560.9 196,251
*Note: These numbers are rounded and are not exact.
As shown in Figure 2.3, residential categories collectively use the most water each year: about 47% on
average, with about 32% attributable to single-family homes. The City government buildings and
facilities only use about 1% of the treated water each year, outside City customer use about 4% and the
Utilities delivers about 2% of the treated water to West Fort Collins Water District. System loss is
discussed in greater detail below.
Commercial customers use about 39% of treated water, on average. Beyond the small, mid and large
commercial customers, the City has identified a number of Key Accounts, who are businesses that are
typically the largest water and energy users. The Utilities’ Customer Accounts representatives work
together with the Key Account customers to connect them to the appropriate experts, programs and
services they need from the City of Fort Collins. These partnerships help customers achieve their
sustainability goals as well as the goals set by the Energy Policy, Water Efficiency Plan and Climate
Action Plan. The Customer Accounts team offers a customized and targeted approach to assist in
accomplishing the goals set by these policies. Given the uniqueness of how each business utilizes water,
the largest users can also apply for a custom water conservation rebate, up to $5,000, in addition to
being encouraged to participate in our other rebate programs.
3.4
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
15
Figure 2.3 Water use by customer category, 2010-2014 average
2.2.1 GPCD: GALLONS CONSUMED PER PERSON PER DAY
Water consumption is often characterized by daily per person use, measured in gallons per capita per
day (gpcd). This is calculated as: total treated water use (including residential, commercial, etc.) divided
by service area population and 365 days (per year):
݃ܿ݀ =
( ݀݊ܽ݉݁݀ ݀݁ݐܽ݁ݎݐ ݈ܽݐݐെ (ܷܥܮ
365 כ ݊݅ݐ݈ܽݑ
These calculations exclude large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements to
produce a value that is comparable to other municipalities.
Fort Collins Utilities also estimates a normalized gpcd metric in order to control for the fluctuations
associated with varying weather patterns. This normalized gpcd is approximately the gpcd that would
have occurred if the weather conditions had been the average weather conditions for the region. This
means that the actual gpcd is generally higher than the normalized gpcd when we have a relatively dry
year and lower in a relatively wet year.
Demand levels have declined significantly over the last few decades, from around 230 gpcd in the early
1990s to about 200 gpcd before the drought year of 2002. Figure 2.4 shows actual gpcd and normalized
gpcd from 2001 through 2014. To help illustrate the role that weather plays in our actual gpcd, the
3.4
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
16
graph also includes annual precipitation and evapotranspiration for grass, both in inches.18 In years
where our region received less precipitation and the evapotranspiration level was higher, actual per
capita water use was higher, too. The average normalized use over 2002 to 2009 is 158 gpcd,
approximately a 21% reduction in per capita water use from before 2002. The average normalized use
from 2010 to 2014 is 146 gpcd, which is about a 27% reduction in per capita use from pre-2002. Since
the 2002-03 drought, several factors have helped to reduce water use including, universal metering,
conservation-oriented rate structures, more efficient plumbing standards, and our robust water
efficiency and education programs.
Figure 2.4 Water use in gallons per capita per day and weather data
Weather patterns mostly affect outdoor use of water. In Figure 2.5, we illustrate an estimate of the
portion of water demand that is utilized outdoors. A common method for estimating indoor versus
outdoor use is to take the average of the demands in December through February and set this to be the
estimate of average indoor demands and assume that no outdoor use occurs in those months. Then for
18 Evapotranspiration is often defined as the combination of the water lost (evaporate) to the atmosphere from
the ground surface, evaporation from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, along with the plant
transpiration, which is evaporation of water from plant leaves. Evapotranspiration is affected by temperature,
relative humidity, wind and air movement, soil moisture availability, and the type of plant. For more information
see: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
3.4
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
17
months March through October, attribute any use above and beyond this average indoor use to be the
estimated outdoor use portion. As shown in Figure 2.5, water use in the summer months can be up to
almost two-thirds of total water demands.
Figure 2.5 Estimated indoor and outdoor use, 2010-2014 average
Fort Collins Utilities participated in a single-family end use study in 2012.19 This study helped shed some
light on how families are using water, through a small 88-household survey and analysis. In terms of
outdoor use, many of the participating homes were estimated to be under-watering, relative to what
was water needs estimated based on landscape area and weather information. However a minority of
homes were over-watering and this excess was large enough to offset any under-watering by the other
participating households. This highlights our need to provide improved programs and education to help
our customers use the optimal amount of water for their landscape.
Since indoor use is less visible to the Utilities, how people allocate and use water indoors is more of a
mystery. This 2012 study illustrated that there are still a significant number of low efficiency toilets and
clothes washers in the housing stock, however the majority of participating homes had a high efficiency
shower heads. The study also estimated that a significant amount of water is lost to leaks, which often
go unnoticed by the residents. This highlights the need to utilize data available through the Advanced
Meter Fort Collins program to help identify leaks and let our customers know so that they can address
19 Study was conducted by Aquacraft Water Engineering and Management, Inc.
3.4
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
18
the problem and stop paying for lost water; we are piloting a Continuous Consumption program to meet
this need, discussed further in Section 2.3.
As noted in Section 1.1, in addition to treated water the Utilities diverts about 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet
of raw water to irrigate City parks, golf courses, a cemetery, greenbelt areas, some school grounds, and
for the purposes of meeting some contractual raw water delivery obligations.
2.2.2 SYSTEM WATER LOSS
Water losses in the Fort Collins Utilities’ water system can occur in several locations:
x Between the points of diversion and the water treatment facility (e.g., from conveyance losses
within the pipelines carrying water to the treatment facility)
x Within the water treatment facility (e.g., during filter backwash processes)
x Within the water distribution system between the water treatment facility and the meters of
end users (e.g., from conveyance losses in the distribution pipe network)
Losses within the conveyance system that brings water to the treatment plant and within the water
treatment plant itself are not fully quantified, but estimated at 3% of the annual diverted volume, when
estimated from source to outlet of the treatment plant. Losses within the distribution system are
estimated based on the difference between the amount of water treated at the treatment plant and the
cumulative amount of water metered at end users. A summary of losses is provided in Table 2.2 below.
These numbers represent estimates only and may reflect a number of factors. Fort Collins Utilities is
currently exploring integration of the American Water Works Association’s M36 methodology into its
water loss management and tracking.
Table 2.2 System Water Loss Estimates
Loss Estimate (in Million Gallons) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Treatment and Diversion to
Treatment Conveyance Losses 242.2 235.7 270.8 233.8 230.0
Distribution Losses 426.5 462.1 695.1 534.9 705.7
Total 668.7 697.8 965.9 768.8 935.7
Distribution loss as percentage of
total treated water 5.4% 6.1% 7.9% 7.1% 9.5%
2.3 PAST AND CURRENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Faced with a drought in 1977, the Utilities created a part-time water conservation position. In 1989 the
position expanded to a full-time position. The first Water Demand Management Policy in 1992 lead to
3.4
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
19
an expansion of conservation projects and increased educational and outreach efforts. This plan set a
conservation goal of 195 gpcd by the year 2020.
Prompted by the drought of 2002-03, the Utilities made several efforts in 2003 to increase
accountability and encourage the efficient use of water including fully metering every customer by,
implementing a conservation-oriented rate structure – a tiered rate structure – with a seasonal
component, initiating several new outreach and educational programs, and also developing the Utilities’
first Water Supply Shortage Response Plan as guidance during drought and other emergency
conditions.20 The first Water Supply and Demand Management Policy was developed in 2003 and set a
conservation goal of 185 gpcd by 2010.
The Utilities’ Water Conservation program expanded again in 2010 with the development of a formal
Water Conservation Plan. This plan set the current conservation goal of 140 normalized gpcd by 2020.
City Council approved the budget for additional programs and staff outlined in the plan starting with the
2010-2011 budgets. The plan was approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in early 2010.
Note that conservation goals are purposely set lower than the Planning Demand Level discussed in
Section 1.2, which is used for supply reliability planning.
2.3.1 CURRENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Table 2.3 is a list of the current demand management activities along with the initial year of
implementation, if known. Note that many of our activities, programs, and regulations have
substantially evolved over the years. For a description of each activity, see Appendix B, which also
contains a table with participation levels from 2010 to 2014 for most of our current activities. This table
does not contain participation counts for events.
Table 2.3 List of Current Water Conservation Activities
Foundational Activities Educational Activities
Metering (2003) Conservation public information efforts (1977)
Conservation-oriented rate structures (2003) Community education programs (1977)
20 The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan contains certain restrictions on the use of City-treated water and
other actions to be taken during a specified drought or water supply conditions.
3.4
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
20
Seasonal rate structures (2003) Business education programs (2004)
Monitor My Use (2014) K-12 education programs (1997)
Online water use calculator (2012) Watershed tours (2012)
Utility water loss program (1993) Home water reports (2014)
Continuous consumption program (2015) Xeriscape Demonstration Garden (1986)
Target Technical Assistance and Incentives Hotel and restaurant conservation materials (2003)
Clothes washer rebates (2003) Conservation kit giveaways (1990)
Dishwasher rebates (2007) Ordinances and Regulations
Toilet/Urinal rebates (2010) Wasting water ordinance (1917)
Showerhead rebates (2011) Plumbing standards (1978)
Irrigation equipment rebates Landscape and irrigation standards (1994)
Sprinkler system audits (1999) Restrictive covenants ordinance (2003)
Xeriscape design/incentive program (2010) Soil amendment ordinance (2003)
Home efficiency audits (2009) Water supply and shortage response plan (2003)
Commercial facility assessments (2004) Water efficiency upgrades at City buildings (2010)
Custom commercial rebates (2011) Green building codes (2011)
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution
(2011) Parkway landscaping regulations (2013)
Low income retrofit program (2007, w/ LCCC) Other Activities
Home efficiency loans/ZILCH/on-bill financing
(2010)
Raw water for City irrigation, large customer reuse
project (1985), backwash water recycling (2003)
2.4 DEMAND FORECASTS
Acquiring water supplies takes many years. In order to ensure a reliable water supply for customers in
the future, the Utilities plan for future growth and water needs. The City’s future municipal water
demands are largely dependent on population growth and the rate of commercial and industrial
development. The rate and pattern of population growth are also influenced by the future economy,
land use policies, and development incentives, among other factors. As such, the Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy Report (dated April 2014) takes the long view and identifies projected
demands through 2050.
2.4.1 PLANNING HORIZON
The current Water Conservation Plan, developed in 2009, identified a 10-year planning horizon with a
goal to update the plan in five years. This Water Efficiency Plan, to be submitted to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board in 2017, takes the middle road and uses a 2030 planning horizon, with incremental
3.4
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
21
goals leading up to the 2030 goal, as well as a goal to develop an updated plan no later than 2024 (seven
years after this Plan’s required submission year).
2.4.2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The Utilities estimates future water demands for a given year by first multiplying the projected
population by the planning demand level (150 gallons per capita per day) multiplied by the number of
calendar days, then projected large contractual use (LCU) is added to get the total projected water
demand, as shown in the equation below. The Demand Planning Level is currently set at 150 gallons per
capita per day, and is purposely set higher than conservation goals to provide a greater level of system
reliability21.
ܶ ܷܥܮ ݀݁ݐ݆ܿ݁ݎܲ + ݏݕܽ݀ ݎ݈ܽ݀݊݁ܽܿ × ݀ܿ݃ 150× ݊݅ݐ݈ܽܲ ݀݁ݐ݆ܿ݁ݎܲ = ݀݊ܽ݉݁ܦ ݈ܽݐ
2.4.3POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Given the differences between the Fort Collins Utilities water service area, the Fort Collins city limits,
and the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, population projections were estimated using
information from a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) study developed for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County. The TAZ information is based on City and County zoning designations, which dictate the type of
development and thus population densities. The TAZ study makes population estimates based on
projected new development and redevelopment in each zone. The population projections for this Plan
were estimated by using the zones within the water service area. Note that, based on the TAZ study, it is
anticipated that the Fort Collins Utilities’ water service area will reach build-out near 2040, meaning that
all vacant buildable land will be developed. After build-out, it is assumed that the water service area
population will only grow via redevelopment, and therefore population growth in the service area is
expected to eventually slow down. However, the Utilities currently has agreements to supply water to
surrounding water districts. With these agreements in place and the potential for more in the future,
the Utilities considers these possibilities in estimating future demand projections. Thus, the population
projections used in this plan includes some of West Fort Collins Water District.22
2.4.4 LARGE CONTRACTUAL USE
In addition to population-based water demands, the Utilities also has contractual obligations to provide
water for the current and future demands of several large industrial water users. Large contractual use
(LCU) is estimated separately from population-based water demand projections and is not included in
21 For more information on the Planning Demand Level, see Section 1.2.
22 The estimates do not include some Fort Collins-Loveland Water District areas currently served by the Utility
because these areas are served only in the sense that a) FCLWD purchases some excess capacity in our Water
Treatment Facility, and b) there is an now terminated agreement whereby certain areas of development could
meet raw water requirements either through the Utilities or the districts. If any of these areas are annexed by the
City, then they would still have the option to make use of this option.
3.4
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
22
the gpcd metric. The LCU projections are added to the overall projected demands, which are based on
population projections and the water demand planning level set in the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy Report (dated April 2014). LCU is currently about 3,900 acre-feet per year of treated
water. Additional raw water is provided to LCUs. Because of certain applications, a portion of the water
supplied to LCUs must be sourced from reusable water rights. The future LCU is estimated to be about
8,000 acre-feet per year by 2050. This will require a mix of single use and reusable water sources.
Figure 2.6 illustrates the projected population for the water service area. This figure also illustrates the
project water demands based on the historic Planning Demand Level and the current Planning Demand
Level.23 It is clear that conservation and efficiency activities, among other factors, have helped to reduce
total water use as well as per capita water use; these reductions have lowered the planning demand
level and helped to increase the reliability of the water supply system.
Figure 2.6 Treated water demand, historic planning levels, and population
23 These estimates also incorporates an estimated 8% system water loss level.
3.4
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
23
3.0 INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
There are four main documents that provide direction and/or complement the Utilities’ water efficiency
efforts, listed below. Along with the most recent Water Conservation Plan of 2010, these documents
helped to develop this updated Water Efficiency Plan and will also guide our ultimate implementation
moving forward.
The City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan (2015-16)24: this document is a result of a planning process
incorporating input from citizens, businesses, City Council, and City staff. It identifies the City’s seven
key outcome areas as well as several strategic objectives in each area; these are to guide the work in
all City service areas. Water efficiency aligns very strongly with Objectives 4.8, 4.7 and 4.6, it also
touches on several other objectives detailed in Appendix C.
The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012)25: this is the guiding document for water
supply and demand management activities. The objective is to provide a sustainable and integrated
approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe, and reliable supply of water for the beneficial use by
customers and the community, and 2) managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a scare
and valuable resource consistent with the preference of Water Utility customers and in recognition
of the region’s semi-arid climate. The original plan was developed approved in 1988; it was updated
in 2003 and again in 2012, with the most up-to-date report published in 2014. This Policy defers to
the latest Water Efficiency Plan to set the efficiency goals.
2015 Climate Action Plan Framework: The CAP provides a high level framework to set Fort Collins on
the path to achieve carbon emissions reduction objectives as requested by Council, but will not
determine future implementation details. Implementation details will be developed as strategies
and tactics are considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be brought forward to Council for
approval prior to implementation. The two main strategic initiatives that involve water are: 1) Water
and Land Use, and 2) Preparation, Adaptation, and Resilience.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (2014)26: this document identifies the restrictions and
requirements intended to achieve progressively higher levels of water savings under various
projected water shortage conditions. The original plan was approved by City Council in 2003 and an
update was approved in 2014.
3.1 WATER EFFICIENCY AND WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
In planning for a reliable, secure, and sustainable water future, the Utilities employs an integrated
resource planning strategy that utilizes a portfolio-based approach to meeting future demands and is
guided by the documents described in Section 3.0 above. In most years, the City of Fort Collins Utilities
has the benefit of having a plentiful level of water supplies that ensure sufficient supplies above the
24 The City’s Strategic Plan can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/pdf/strategic-plan-2015.pdf
25 Though a more extensive report was developed and dated April 2014. See the City’s Water Supply and Demand
page: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-supply-demand
26
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ORDINANCE_NUMBER_088_July_2014_Water_Supply_
Shortage_Response_Plan.pdf
3.4
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
24
reliability criteria discussed in Section 1.2. The Utilities’ water supplies are expected to support
projected changes to demand under a combined strategy of a) increased long-term storage and, b)
continued water efficiency efforts. This diversified approach will reduce water demand, improve system
reliability, and enhance community resilience to drought and climate change. These two strategies need
to be undertaken collectively; either on their own will be significantly less effective without the other.
Expanded water efficiency measures are cost-effective means to water supplies that can be utilized for
several beneficial purposes. Conserved water can be stored for periods of drought, leased for
agriculture, or even used for beneficial environmental enhancement efforts such as in-stream flow
programs. Increased storage provides a physical location for conserved water and enables Fort Collins to
take full advantage of savings achieved by customers. See Section 1.3 for more information on the role
of storage in our supply and demand management planning.
3.1.1 BENEFITS OF WATER EFFICIENCY
In addition to being a key part of the integrated resource management process, water efficiency
programs also:
Foster a conservation ethic and reduce waste: the success of this Plan depends on the cooperation and
support of the Water Utility customers and the City of Fort Collins community. Instilling a conservation
ethic is an important foundation to changing habits and attitudes toward water use. The power of the
individual in conservation makes a big difference in protecting quality of life, including our environment
today and for generations to come. Our average use, calculated as gallons per capita per day (gpcd), has
declined significantly. For example, in 2001 the gpcd was 198, whereas in 2014 it was 143. Several
conservation-based efforts took place on the heels of the 2002-03 drought which have helped to
support a sustained reduction in use; these include full metering, conservation-oriented rate structures,
seasonal rate structures, expanded targeted industry outreach, the restrictive covenants ordinance,
conservation kit giveaways, clothes washer rebates, and more.
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability: The City aims to be leaders in this effort. The City
approved the Climate Action Plan Framework in 2015 and previously approved an Action Plan for
Sustainability in 2004, and an Environmental Policy in 2009 that outline the ways the City itself will
reduce its environmental impact (this includes a commitment to identifying and implementing effective
ways to conserve natural resources). To bring the global concept of sustainability to action at the local
level, sustainability advocates use the triple bottom line in decision-making. Essentially, that means
projects are evaluated based on their social, economic and environmental impacts. Rather than make
decisions on the basis of profit or the economic bottom line, three bottom lines (social, economic, and
environmental) are considered. For the City, it means creating an optimal mix of resource efficiency,
cost effectiveness and employee well-being in daily City operations. One example of a goal is to reduce
municipal operations water irrigation and increase efficiency per acre, as well as to reduce indoor use by
20% by 2020.27 City buildings are required to achieve LEED “Gold” certification. Also, several areas of
City grounds have been renovated with low water using landscape materials and some weather sensors
have been added to the irrigation systems. The City Parks system is regularly audited; the majority of the
Parks irrigation systems uses 95% or less of the water needed, based on the turf and plant
requirements.
27 http://www.fcgov.com/sustainability/goals.php
3.4
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
25
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes: Conservation efforts can help to provide more water for
beneficial uses beyond normal municipal purposes. For example, the area around Fort Collins continues
to be a productive agricultural area, which in addition to representing economic activity, also provide
significant open space outside of Fort Collins that is desired by many residents. When possible, making
some of the City’s surplus water available for these purposes provides supplemental revenue for the
Utility and its customers. The potential environmental benefits of conserved water are also important.
These include providing additional flow for the local stream systems, in-stream flow programs,
improvements in water quality, improvements in aquatic and riparian ecosystems, enhanced
recreational opportunities, and aesthetics, among other benefits.
Enhance resilience during drought periods: Conservation and efficiency efforts can help to develop a
community and landscape that is more resilient to drought conditions. Through support of drought
planning and implementation of proactive mitigation efforts, the actions proposed in this Plan can help
to reduce vulnerability, protect economic health, and ease the effect of drought on individuals,
businesses, and landscapes.
Prepare for climate change: Climate change may have significant impacts on both water demands and
water supplies in the time frame of this plan. It is anticipated that climate change in the Mountain West
will likely include the following changes: Increased evapotranspiration rates, increasing the water
required to maintain the landscaping; more frequent dry spells and a longer growing season; increased
variability in seasonal snow pack; earlier spring snowmelt and runoff; changes in the distribution of
precipitation throughout a given year. These changes are expected to accelerate over the decades
ahead and impacts may depend largely on factors such as population growth, economic growth and
technological changes. Utilities will likely face significant challenges in the years ahead managing both
water demands and water supplies. With many uncertainties regarding both water supply and demand,
it is prudent to prepare for a wide range of conditions in the future. One example of the importance of
efficiency efforts is that without conservation and/or significant changes in landscaping choices, outdoor
water use will likely increase over the coming decades as customers strive to maintain their landscapes
in a hotter and longer growing season. Furthermore, an approach that also includes planning for
adequate reservoir capacity to help balance the swing in supplies available between wet and dry periods
Reduce costs:
Direct utility costs: Efficiency programs decrease water and wastewater treatment costs as it
reduces the amount of chemicals and energy used to produce, deliver, and heat water.
Customer costs: water bill, but also the cost of energy to heat water, and landscape related
costs including the cost to maintain, like labor costs, fertilizer and other landscape-related
product costs.28
Long-term costs: decisions about water supplies, treatment/distribution capacity needs, storage
facilities are all made in consideration of projected water demand and peak capacity.
In addition to these savings, Fort Collins Utilities has benefited financially from conservation in two
notable ways:
28 These costs may also represent larger environmental costs as run-off from landscapes can affect water quality
and ecosystem health.
3.4
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
26
Halligan Water Supply Storage project size: The original Halligan Reservoir enlargement planned
allotment for Fort Collins was 12,000 acre-feet, which was in part based on the 2003 planning
demand level of 185 gpcd. Among other factors considered in the permitting process, the role of
conservation and the downward trend in gpcd (current planning demand level = 150 gpcd)
resulted in revising the enlargement downward to only 8,125 acre-feet, which is approximately
a 68% reduction and represents a $6.1M savings in project costs.
Extra Water Treatment Facility capacity: A Water Treatment Facility (WTF) is designed for peak
demand. The Fort Collins WTF was last expanded in 1999, prior to the significant increase in
conservation efforts prompted by the 2002-03 drought. The total WTF treatment capacity of 87
MGD is estimated to be at least 23% larger than the expected build out in 2035 peak demand (~
20 MGD). In 2013, the City of Fort Collins Utilities entered into an agreement with Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District to sell FCLWD up to 5 million gallons per day (MGD) in excess water
treatment capacity. The financial benefits of this agreement include the associated plant
investment fee of $12.6M and a treatment charge of about $2 per thousand gallons.29
Delay of capital expansion projects: Decreased wastewater flows have delayed the expansions
of the Drake Water Reclamation Facility treatment capacity from 2010 to 2028.
3.2 WATER EFFICIENCY GOALS
This plan’s overarching goal is to reduce water demand to 130 gpcd by 2030. Our progress toward this
goal will be consistently monitored; an updated Water Efficiency Plan will be developed no later than
2024 (7 years from the anticipated CWCB 2017 submission date). Figure 3.1 illustrates the projected
water demand level if this water efficiency goal is met, the current 140 gpcd by 2020 goal in the 2010
Water Conservation Plan, and the current 150 gpcd Planning Demand Level used in water supply
reliability planning, along with historic and projected population. Figure 3.2 is a graph of gpcd levels,
rather than total volume. This figure shows the historic gpcd levels along with our goal level and the
projected trend in use that will achieve that goal. Chapter 4 describes the strategies for achieving this
goal.
29 In addition to the benefits to the City of Fort Collins Utilities, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District will be able to
defer expansion of their current treatment facility and/or construction of a new water treatment facility.
Additional information on this agreement can be found in the City of Fort Collins City Council agenda and materials
from the October 1st, 2013 regular City Council meeting.
3.4
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
27
Figure 3.1 Water efficiency goals, demand and population
3.4
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
28
Figure 3.2 Historic GPCD and New Conservation Goal
3.4
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
29
4.0 SELECTION OF WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Utilities Water Conservation Team uses its mission and three overarching objectives to select the
programs, projects, and approaches used in our daily efforts. These will ultimately guide our path to
achieving our water efficiency goal of 130 gpcd by 2030 and align our work and efforts with those of the
Utilities, the City and the State.
Water Conservation Team Mission: Cultivate a water efficient, adaptive, and knowledgeable customer
base through education and cost-effective water efficiency programs while supporting the City’s
strategic plan and its social, environmental, and economic health.
Water Conservation Team Objectives:
Water Efficiency and Conservation – provide water for beneficial purposes while reducing
unnecessary use and waste.
Customer Service – provide exceptional service for an exceptional community
Technical Support – provide technical expertise to customers and City staff
4.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTION PROCESS
4.1.1 SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA
Fort Collins has a robust water conservation approach with a number of conservation activities that
have been implemented for years. We intend to continue the water efficiency activities, in some form,
within our current portfolio of programs. These programs are likely to evolve over the years and the
exact specifics of each are subject to change as a result of changing legislation, regulations, technology,
customer preferences, appliance/fixture saturation rate, and Utilities/City plans. For example, the state
of Colorado has passed legislation (Senate Bill 14-103) that mandates that any plumbing figure sold in
the state must meet WaterSense standards by September 2016; this includes lavatory faucets, toilets,
urinals, and showerheads. This change will likely affect our current approach to incentivizing customers
to swap out old efficient fixtures for new, efficient ones.
In addition to a review of our existing activities, new and innovative activities were researched. Potential
activities were identified from a number of sources including the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s
technical resources, the Colorado WaterWise Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water
Conservation in Colorado30, a broad literature review, exploration of other utility case studies, and input
from Utility staff, the City of Fort Collins Water Board, the community, the Water Conservation staff, and
a Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory Group, consisting of several City departments as well as
community members. This process not only identified activities, but also processes and tools that have
the potential to help improve all activities.
The activities identified in this plan represent the best choices at the time. Technology, regulations,
efficiency standards, market saturation, customer preferences and other factors are likely to change
before this plan is updated and are sure to change during the course of the planning horizon (2030). We
will continue to monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of current activities while also exploring
30 http://cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/best-management-practices/Pages/main.aspx
3.4
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
30
new programs. The City of Fort Collins utilizes a two-year budgeting cycle called Budgeting for
Outcomes, which determines funding for Water Efficiency activities by, in part, evaluating the proposed
activities against the City’s strategic outcomes. We are therefore potentially constrained in terms of the
activities we can undertake; the funding must be available and approved by City Council.
4.1.2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Each of the potential activities will be prioritized using the following qualitative screening criteria.
Program Effectiveness: This combines the estimated water savings with the estimated program
costs: How effective is the activities in terms of gallons of water saved per program dollar spent?
Staff Resources: How labor- and time-intensive is the program? Do we have the staff resources
to properly support the program?
Customer Preferences: Does this activity meet the needs and wants of the Utility water service
area customers? Does this activity support the social and economic health of our customers?
Participation Level and Reach: How many customers could be impacted by this program? What
types of customers does it reach? Is it engaging previously unengaged customers?
Alignment with other Utility and City objectives: Does this program support activities in other
areas of the Utility and the City? Does it help achieve Utility and City strategic objectives?
4.1.3 POTENTIAL NEW DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In addition to continuing the existing set of water conservation and efficiency activities listed in Section
2.3 and described in greater detail in Appendix B, we identified five areas of opportunity for developing
new programs and approaches. Each highlights an area with great potential to expand and increase
water efficiency and great potential to better meet the needs of our customers. Each of these areas also
supports specific strategic outcomes and objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan; these are listed in
Appendix C. In this process we also identified three implementation principles that will guide the
development of any new programs and strategies; these are detailed in Section 5.1.
Areas of Opportunity
x Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
x Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
x Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
x Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
x Increase community water literacy
Table 4.1 highlights a few benefits of each identified area, a few potential activities that fall into each
area, as well as a brief description of an existing practice within the area.
3.4
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
31
Table 4.1 Areas of Opportunity
Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 3.9, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.9, 7.10
Benefits
• Increased customer
understanding of water use
• Greater connectivity to
customers
• Increased customer
benefits through web portal
information and tools
• Less confusion and fewer
bill surprises
Potential Activities
• Monitor My Use & High
Bill/Use Alerts
• Improved leak detection
• Near real-time identification
of savings and inefficiencies
• Craft easy-to-understand,
targeted water-savings
actions based on data and use
patterns
Example: The
continuous consumption
uses AMI data to detect
likely leaks; we alert
homeowners so that
they can fix the leak and
avoid damage and high
bills. In 2015 we reached
out to 980 customers.
Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 1.11, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.5
Benefits
• Reduced peak season and
peak day demands, which
impact system capacity
needs and long-term
planning
• Customer benefits through
lower bills, increased
aesthetics and home value
• Fewer wasting water
issues/complaints
Potential Activities
• Residential and Commercial
sprinkler audit programs
• Xeriscape Incentive Program
• Customer and Contractor
training series
• Interactive demonstrations
• Educational Water budget
tool
Example: In 2014 we
provided over 400
sprinkler system audits,
with an estimated
potential savings of
32
Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 3.5, 3.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.10
Benefits
• Increased water savings
due to scale of projects
• Enhanced business
partnerships
• Support ClimateWise
program
• Enable greater economic
health
Example Activities
• Custom commercial rebate
program
• Benchmarking
• Targeted industry-specific
campaigns and outreach
• Address tenant/owner
incentive misalignment
Example: In 2013 the
custom commercial
program helped replace
two pools filters, which
are estimated to have
nearly 800,000 gallons
per year.
Increase community water literacy
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.4
Benefits
• Customer has greater
understanding of role in the
water system
• Increased customer
understanding and support
of Utilities’ actions and
decisions
• Increased cooperation
during difficult conditions
Example Activities
• Improved and expanded
messaging strategies
• Identify new approaches to
education and outreach
• Develop innovative methods
to strengthen K-12 water
literacy curriculum
Example: In 2014 we
began providing Home
Water Report to select
customers; these display
usage information,
comparisions to similar
homes, and provide
efficiency tips.
Households receiving
the reports reduced
their use by 2%.
We also highlight a few other promising areas, in addition to our current program and the types of
activities identified in the Strategic Objectives sections, that we plan to explore in the coming years.
33
M36 Audit & Other Leak Monitoring Initiatives: A significant way to reduce water loss, reduce
bills and repair expenses, is a robust portfolio of leak detection, monitoring, and notification
initiatives, including those that address leaks within our distribution system, private property
leaks that occur prior to the meter and result in non-revenue waste, and continue to expand and
enhance our beyond-the-meter Continuous Consumption Program. The Utilities is also in the
process of incorporating the American Water Works Association’s M36 Audit process to ensure
“the accountable and efficient management of water supplies” by the Utilities.32
Rebate and Incentive Programs: We aim to ensure that the rebate level is based upon data-
driven estimates of the water savings that results from the appliance, fixture, or technology
change. This process will also include an approach to phase out or adjust program specifications
once Colorado becomes a WaterSense state in September 2016. We also want to expand the
reach of our programs to help more customers, either through community partnerships or new
approaches to outreach and marketing. We will explore how to reach more low-income or
otherwise disadvantaged households, rental units, and multi-family units.
32 The M36 represents a National standardized approach to water supply system audits that accounts for all water.
http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/publications/documents/toc/m36ed3.pdf
http://oawwa.org/SDWA%20Presentations/2013/Water%20Audit%20Presentation,%20November%204,%202013.
pdf
3.4
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
34
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION
The following principles serve as guidance to implementing existing and new activities. We believe these
principles will help to improve effectiveness of our programs, help to achieve our water efficiency goals,
and keep our actions in alignment with our overall mission. These principles are also in alignment with
several Strategic Objectives in the City Plan, including 3.9, 7.4, 7.5, 7.10, and 7.11. These are further
described in Appendix C.
Employ sophisticated data-driven processes and decision-making
Cultivate new and bolster existing community and statewide partnerships
Benefits
• Greater trust in the Utilities
• Expanded capacity and reach
through project partners
• Support economic health
• Stronger network of conservation
partners
Example Actions
• Expand conservation support for nearby water
districts
• Expand work with higher education institutions
• Increase public-private projects, like an
industry-specific water efficiency conference
• Participate in and contribute to statewide
conservation efforts, (e.g. Colorado
WaterWise, Colorado Foundation for Water
Education)
Coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City
Benefits
• Decisions supported by data
• Improved accuracy of water savings
estimates
• Increased overall portfolio
effectiveness
• Increased program savings and reach
through use of behavioral science
principles
h
Example Actions
• Targeted and tailored programs
• Marketing and Communications
• Streamlined, consistent program
tracking and reporting
• Develop and monitor targeted
metrics to support targeted goals
Benefits
• Improved consistency and
reduced redundancy across City
efforts
• Simplified processes for
customers
• Greater synergies in the water-
energy nexus space
Example Actions
• Resource Conservation unification in Utilities
• Collaborate with efforts of Environmental
Services, Planning, Natural Areas, Community
Engagement, Nature in the City, Housing and
Development, Parks, among others
3.4
35
5.1.1 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Each year existing activities will be evaluated and adjusted to ensure that they are performing well –
both internally and externally – and that they are meeting our goals and objectives. Any new programs
will be subject to a holistic vetting process, by bringing in internal stakeholders from other areas of the
Utilities and the City to ensure consideration of multiple viewpoints and create organization-wide
awareness and support for the new program.
Part of the support for existing new program development will stem from the Utilities’ new Program
Management Office, which is tasked with launching Utilities activities in a way that is well planned, well-
resourced and sustainable. New programs will be developed through a process that includes several key
stages. New programs will need clearly stated goals and objectives. Models will be developed to test the
viability of the proposed program in meeting water savings and other goals. These models will likely lay
the groundwork for metrics that will measure the effectiveness of the programs. Once a proposed
process starts to become clear, risk assessment and a business case will be developed to strengthen and
validate the proposed conservation program or activity. Proposed processes will be mapped and
documented and roles of staff will be assigned. Internal and external stakeholders will be engaged to
ensure consideration of multiple viewpoints, create organization-wise awareness and support for the
new program, and to make sure the program is supported by our customers.
The programs that ultimately are implemented will be a function of the budgeting process. The City of
Fort Collins uses a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) approach, which is based on the premise of prioritizing
funding for results, rather than focusing on funding inputs and costs. This method shifts the focus from
paying for costs to buying results, and emphasizes accountability, innovation, and partnerships. This is a
two-year cycle, with the next preparation phase starting in 2016 for the 2017-18 budget cycle. In order
to fund new water efficiency programs, we will need to show that the program can deliver results. These
results most importantly include improved water efficiency and sustained water savings.
5.2 MONITORING
We cannot monitor or improve what we do not measure. The benefits of monitoring include:
Feedback as to whether or not conservation activities are affecting change.
Identification of programs that might not be cost-effective relative to other programs or to
developing new supply.
Clarity of alignment with goals and if a given program warrants expansion, modification or
termination.
Improvement of modeling of supply needs.
Illustration of savings by various customer segments
Tracking of participation based on customer class and other factors to help verify programs are
accessible to all types of customers
Prioritization of program development funding and expansion
While the main goal of this plan is identified in terms of gpcd (a common metric used throughout the
water industry that captures community water use changes at a high level) we intend to also focus on
more specific and targeted metrics.
3.4
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
36
These tracking metrics may include but are not limited to:
Water savings estimates with breakdowns by seasonal vs. baseline, consumptive vs. non-
consumptive, treated vs. raw
Direct and indirect energy savings associated with water saved
Landscape changes, including the amount of irrigated landscape; annual amount of audited
landscape
Total participation in programs and events, number of new participants, types of participants –
including type of customer based on customer class, sociodemographic categories, geographic
location, etc.
Customer use of the Monitor My Use web portal, mobile, and other online tools and alerts
How effectively events, educational and informational strategies lead customers to participate
in a program; if participation in one program leads to participation in other programs
3.4
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
37
GLOSSARY
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply system; a drought is a period
of below average runoff that can last one or more years and is often measured by its duration, average
annual shortage and cumulative deficit below the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry
period that is likely to occur, on average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has
several drought periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts
were equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50 drought
used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six years long and has a
cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual river volumes that are about 70% of
the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also “Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre-foot can supply
around three to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for storage comparison the maximum
volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 acre-feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows and releases
that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which is known as dead capacity)
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use at a later time,
most notably in following years
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings water from the
Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel and the Big Thompson River
to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir; operated by the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (or Northern Water); Fort Collins Utilities currently owns 18,855 units of the
310,000 total units in the CBT project
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage rights that can
be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
Drought Criterion - The drought criterion states that in a 1-in-50 year drought the Utilities should be able
to meet the planning demand level. This is an important criterion because not only will demands often
be higher in drought periods due to less precipitation, water supply systems generally will also yield less
water. The Utilities has used a 1-in-50 year drought criterion since the original 1988 Water Supply Policy.
ELCO - short for East Larimer County Water District
Evapotranspiration - the combination of the water lost (evaporate) to the atmosphere from the ground
surface, evaporation from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, along with the plant
transpiration, which is evaporation of water from plant leaves. Evapotranspiration is affected by
temperature, relative humidity, wind and air movement, soil moisture availability, and the type of plant.
For more information see: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
3.4
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
38
FCLWD - short for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands through a series
of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to meet the planning demand level
and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought
Criterion”, “planning demand level” and “storage reserve factor”
GMA – short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City of Fort Collins’
future City limits
gpcd - short for gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced at the Water Treatment
Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or
exchange agreements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365
days
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when changing water rights
from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a decree from Colorado Water Court
that involves detailed analysis of the historic agricultural water use, including the water diversions,
amount used by the crops, and the return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the
decree to prevent municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing
return flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
LiDar: This is a remote sensing technology that can be used in large-scale landscape analysis.
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD);
Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is involved in several other
regional water projects on behalf of their participants; see also “Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - short for North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies water to farmers
north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in Halligan Reservoir
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply planning purposes
that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
RWR – short for Raw Water Requirements, which requires new development to turn in water rights or
cash-in-lieu of water rights to support the water needs of that development; cash is used to increase the
firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage
capacity)
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or priority system,
which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees (senior rights) will get their
water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water, often described as “first in time, first in right”
3.4
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
39
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing water supply
systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having 20 percent of annual demands in
storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or
1.5 month of summer demands
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically includes water for
direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins Utilities, includes City owned water
rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and
ownership in the CBT project
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy, which provides Fort Collins Utilities
guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water right; the yield
of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water available (i.e., low or high river
runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also “Firm Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”.
3.4
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
40
APPENDIX A: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 1
The following are descriptions of the various water supplies currently in the Utilities water supply
portfolio:
Poudre River Basin Water Rights:
Senior Direct Flow Decrees: The City has five very senior direct flow decrees on the Poudre River
that are available to the City most of the time. Only in very severe dry periods are the diversions
limited.
Junior Direct Flow Decrees: These junior rights are only in priority during the peak runoff period
when most of the other rights on the Poudre River have been satisfied. In dry years, the City
may not be able to divert anything under these rights.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Shares: The City owns a substantial portion of the shares in this
mutual irrigation company. The amount of water the City is entitled to divert to meet treated
water demands depends on the number of shares the City designates for such use and which
priorities owned by the irrigation company are in priority during the season.
Southside Ditches: The City owns shares of stock in the Arthur, Larimer No. 2, New Mercer and
Warren Lake irrigation companies, often referred to as the Southside Ditches. With 13 separate
priorities, yields vary considerably from year to year. Much of the yield comes from a couple of
large junior rights and normally only yields during the high runoff months of May and June.
Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir System: This system consists of a ditch that diverts
water from the Michigan River drainage across the divide into the Poudre River Basin, Joe
Wright Reservoir and storage capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir. Joe Wright Reservoir
includes about 6,500 acre-feet of active storage and is the only storage facility owned and
operated by the City. There are usually periods during the peak runoff season in which the
reservoir is full and Michigan Ditch water is available if it can be taken directly to meet demands.
Joe Wright Reservoir is used primarily to regulate the annual Michigan Ditch flows and has
limited carryover capacity to provide drought protection for the City. The City also has storage
capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir, which is used to release water to downstream senior rights
on the Michigan River.
Water Supply and Storage Company Shares: The City owns about 27 shares in this irrigation
company. Since the City-owned shares are not presently decreed for municipal use, this water is
usually rented back for agricultural use.
Colorado-Big Thompson Water System:
3.4
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
41
Horsetooth Reservoir: Water from Horsetooth Reservoir, a part of the C-BT Project, can be
delivered to the City’s water treatment facility or to the Poudre River. The following sources are
available for use from Horsetooth Reservoir.
Windy Gap Water: The City receives Windy Gap water from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA)
as payment for 4,200 acre-feet of reusable effluent made available to PRPA by the City. The
reusable effluent is the result of a Reuse Plan that involves the City, PRPA, and the Water Supply
and Storage Company (WSSC). The 4,200 acre-feet of Windy Gap water is dedicated for large
contractual use that requires reusable water. As part of the Reuse Plan, the City is required to
deliver 1,890 acre-feet of single use water to the WSSC.
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) Shares: The City currently owns about 3,564 shares of
NPIC. Each share consists of native water supply (which is primarily decreed for agricultural use)
and 4 units of C-BT water. Unless the agricultural portion of each share is changed for municipal
purposes, the City can only use the C-BT portion of the shares to meet treated water demands.
West Fort Collins Water District (WFCWD) Water: Through an agreement with the WFCWD, the
City provides treated water to their customers and in return, gets reimbursed with an equivalent
amount of C-BT water. In recent years, the amount transferred to the City has been about 500
acre-feet each year.
3.4
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
42
APPENDIX B: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 2
Table: Collected Service Area Trends, 2001-2014
Year
Service
Area
Population
Annual Water
Use (MG)
Average
Day Use
(MGD)
Actual Use
(gpcd)
Normalized
Average Use
(gpcd)
Peak Day
Use (MGD)
Actual Peak
Day Use
(gpcd)
1 in 50
Normalized
Peak Day Use
Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
ETos
Grass Tot
(in)
2001 121,300 9,978 27.3 198 198 55.8 428 503 12.3 45
2002 123,700 9,599 26.2 183 189 51.4 378 411 9.3 47
2003 125,500 8,280 22.6 154 157 46.9 346 383 18.2 49
2004 125,800 7,984 21.8 146 150 42.3 307 327 18.1 44
2005 126,900 8,497 23.3 155 155 50.1 365 363 16.2 49
2006 127,800 9,268 25.4 172 156 48.9 353 350 11.2 51
2007 128,400 8,860 24.2 162 156 47.5 342 356 13.7 44
2008 128,700 8,352 22.8 153 153 44.3 321 333 13.8 50
2009 128,900 7,391 20.2 135 147 37.1 265 304 21.9 46
2010 129,000 7,830 21.4 146 144 40.8 295 323 14.1 48
2011 129,100 7,621 20.8 141 144 39.7 285 289 17.8 49
2012 129,200 8,757 23.9 165 152 46.8 342 315 10.8 54
2013 129,300 7,560 20.7 141 147 43 312 303 18.8 47
2014 130,200 7,437 20.4 139 143 37.2 269 288 16.7 47
3.4
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
43
The following are descriptions of the Current Water Conservation Program Activities, along with the first
year of full implementation.
Foundational Activities
Metering (2003): Commercial and multi-family units have been metered for decades; the
Utilities fully metered residential customers by 2003. The Utilities transitioned to advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI) in 2014, known as Advanced Meter Fort Collins (AMFC) The data
resolution is hourly intervals for water and 15-minute intervals for electric.
Conservation-oriented rate structures (2003) – Tiered rates (increasing block rate structure).
There are currently three tiers for residential single-family and duplex customers, one tier for
multi-family units, and two tiers and commercial customers.33
Seasonal rate structures (2003): Multi-family and commercial customers face higher rates from
May through October.
Monitor My Use (2014): this web-based portal was developed to provide customers near-real
time access to their historical and current electric and water usage and costs. The portal also
provides comparisons to the previous bill period, and illustrates which tier you are currently in.
There are alert-based features that a customer can use to provide automatic notifications when
they reach a certain usage level or cost level.34 A mobile version was launched in December
2014.
Online water use calculator (2012): Customers can use an online calculator with their household
parameters and historic water consumption to identify ways to improve efficiency and reduce
use.35
Utility water loss program (1993): Sonar equipment is used to listen for leaks in the water mains
and pinpoint their locations. Crews monitor water leaks on an ongoing basis, with a two-year
cycle to survey all water mains. Catching leaks before they have surfaced saves water and costs
of excavation and repairs, and supports the wasting water ordinance.
Continuous Consumption program (2015): this program developed a data query that checks the
meter data for meter readings that have continuously remained above zero for 72 hours.
Customers with the highest continuous flow rates are contacted to make them aware of the
continuous consumption and the likely leak. Staff troubleshoots with the customer to try to find
the source of continuous use.
33 For the most current residential rates see: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/rates/water. Multi-family
units are often not sub-metered and instead have a base charge which varies by the number of dwelling units.
Commercial customers’ rates are based on the size of the meter; this includes the base charge, the volumetric
charge, and the volume above which customers face the second-tier rates. See
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/manage-your-account/rates/water for the most current rates.
34 This tool is only available for residential customers. Commercial customers currently have access to a different
tool called MV Web and the Utilities is exploring new methods and systems to address commercial customers’
needs.
35 Currently, the Utilities’ website provides a link to the following website developed by the Alliance for Water
Efficiency: http://www.home-water-works.org/
3.4
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
44
Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives
Indoor Appliance and Fixture Rebates (residential and commercial):
Clothes Washer (2003): Available for eligible EnergyStar labeled clothes washers.
Dishwasher (started 2007): Available for eligible EnergyStar labeled dishwashers.
Toilet (2010): Available for eligible WaterSense labeled toilets and urinals.36
Showerhead (2011): Available for eligible WaterSense labeled showerheads.
Outdoor Equipment Rebates (residential and commercial):
Sensors (rain, soil moisture), high-efficiency nozzles, pressure-reducing heads, pressure
regulators, and smart irrigation controllers
Sprinkler system audits (1999): audits are offered to homeowners and homeowner associations
to help them improve sprinkler system efficiency.
Xeriscape design/incentive program (2010): provides homeowners a one-on-one consultation
with a landscape design professional for a small fee.
Home efficiency audits (2009): residential customers are offered an energy and water audit of
their home to identify equipment and actions that can improve efficiency for a small fee. Faucet
aerators and showerheads are installed at the time of the audit.
Commercial facility assessments (2004): facility audits are performed to assess water and
energy use and make recommendations for improved efficiency. During these assessments, low-
flow aerators are installed at no cost to the business.
Commercial custom rebates (2011): offered for any technology (e.g. cooling tower conductivity
control, leak detection and repair, fixture replacement, etc.) that has a documented water
savings from the current equipment.
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution (started 2011): low flow pre-rinse spray valves (to
rinse trays of dishes prior to washing them) are installed at no charge for restaurants and other
food service operations.
Low income retrofit program (2007): provides low income single- and multi-family households
with toilet, showerhead and faucet aerator retrofits. This work is often done in partnership with
Larimer County Conservation Corps.
Home efficiency loans/on-bill financing (2010): this program offers a low cost, no-money-down
financing option for up to 20 years. Loans are conveniently repaid by the customer through their
monthly utility bill.
36 The toilet rebate program also includes a mandatory toilet recycling component. The porcelain from recycled
toilets is used by the Streets Department as a road base.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/water-efficiency/toilet-rebates/toilet-recycling
3.4
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
45
Educational Activities
Conservation public information efforts (1977): Information is disseminated via bill inserts, bus
benches, billboards, events, newspaper articles, TV and radio announcements, Utilities website
information, social media, and more. The team also serves as technical experts to help
commercial customers with water use or billing questions. Displays are set up at several
community events including the Sustainable Living Fair, Harvest Festival, Business Innovation
Fair and many others.
Community education programs (1977)37: These programs include the Educators’ workshops,
contractor trainings, and partnerships to put on other events like the Residential Environmental
Program Series. The Utilities also conducts educational programs about Xeriscape landscaping,
watering techniques and practices and general water conservation. A daily Lawn Watering Guide
is published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan and on the City’s website during the watering season.
Business education programs (2004): Programs are offered to commercial customers on a
variety of environmental topics, including water conservation. Staff provides newsletters,
mailings, meetings and seminars on topics of interest to specific businesses, such as restaurants,
hotels, car washes, landscapers, and key accounts.
K-12 education programs (1977): Presentations and hands-on activities are provided to school
classes on water topics, including the history of water in Fort Collins, water use and
conservation, water chemistry and watersheds. Fort Collins Utilities is a co-sponsor of the
annual Children’s Water Festival.
Watershed tours (2012): Educational bus tours of the Utilities’ Cache la Poudre watershed;
involves information about drinking water, protection of water resources, water quality, and
managing urban watersheds.
Home Water Reports (2014): These reports are delivered to a portion of customers on a bi-
monthly basis. The reports provide households with information on their current water use and
comparisons to historical use as well as similar households’ use.38
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden (1986): Staff oversees maintenance of the City's Xeriscape
Demonstration Garden and provides tours at organized events and upon request. We are also
partnering to support various demonstration gardens and other events at the Gardens on Spring
Creek.39
Hotel and restaurant conservation material distribution (2003): A three-card set is available for
hotels and other lodging establishments to inform guests about importance of water
conservation to our area and to encourage the reuse of towels and linens. Tent cards are
available for restaurants telling customers that “water is served upon request.”
Conservation kit giveaways (1990): Free conservation kits with indoor and/or outdoor water-
saving devices and information are offered periodically to customers during events.
37 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/community-education
38 The Utilities implements a similar program (Home Energy Reports) for electric customers.
39 http://www.fcgov.com/gardens/
3.4
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
46
Ordinances and Regulations
Wasting water ordinance (1917) – staff enforces the section of the City Code that prohibits
wasting water. Wasting water complaints are investigated. Complaints are used as an education
tool, but enforcement by ticketing is also an option.40
Plumbing standards (1978): All construction within the City of Fort Collins shall comply with the
most recent International Plumbing Code, among other codes and standards.41
Landscape and irrigation standards (1994) - New development landscape and irrigation plans are
reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code's water conservation standards. As part of
these standards, a rain shut-off device and a post-installation audit are required for commercial
sprinkler systems.
Restrictive covenants ordinance (2003) – City Code prohibits homeowner association covenants
from banning the use of Xeriscape or requiring a percentage of landscape area to be planted
with turf, if the homeowner owns the property and pays for the water that irrigations the
landscape.
Soil amendment ordinance (2003): requires builders to amend the soil for new landscapes.
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (2003): This plan has a series of measures to be enacted,
including water restrictions, for various levels of water shortage.42
Water efficiency upgrades at City buildings (2010): The City is committed to building new City
buildings to the LEED standards; including water efficiency upgrades. Audits are conducted at
existing City facilities and upgraded water-efficient indoor fixtures and sprinkler system
equipment are installed. The City has a sustainability goal to reduce municipal building water
use (normalized to account for weather conditions), by 20% by 2020.43
Green building codes (2011)44: Existing building codes include many elements that support
green building; the code green amendments represent the next steps along the path of
integrating green building practices into mainstream construction. These codes include a
requirement for bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets to not exceed
the flow rates of WaterSense labeled fixtures.
Parkway landscaping regulations (2013)45 – The City updated the Streetscape Standards to
include more flexibility to xeriscape the parkway, the strip of land between a residential street
and the sidewalk.
40 City Ordinance No. 089, last updated in 2014.
41 http://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php
42 City Ordinance No. 088, last updated in 2014.
43 http://www.fcgov.com/sustainability/goals.php
44 http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php
45 http://www.fcgov.com/planning/streetscapedesign.php
3.4
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
47
Other Activities
Raw water for City irrigation: Raw water is used to irrigate the majority of the City’s parks,
cemeteries, and golf courses.46
Large customer reuse (1985) – Treated wastewater from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility is
pumped to Rawhide Power Plant for landscaping and cooling water.
Backwash water recycling (2003): Backwash water recycling equipment at the water treatment
facility treats backwash water and recycles it to the beginning of the treatment process.
Program Participation 2010-2014 (does not include event attendance)
Program 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clothes Washers 1249 1366 993 971 1058
Dishwasher 780 880 635 648 787
Residential Toilet 479 573 912 651 1004
Commercial Restroom -- 1 4 rebates;
443 items
16 rebates; 79
items
27 rebates;
249 items
Commercial Clothes Washer -- -- 0 1 0
Commercial Dishwasher -- -- 0 1 0
Commercial Kitchen Info Program -- -- 32 nozzles, 72
aerators
16 rebates, 79
items --
Custom Commercial Rebate -- 2 1 3 rebate;
14 items 0
Showerhead -- 21 27 25 73
Residential Sprinkler Equipment 164 118 137 rebates;
170 items
108 rebates;
880 items
97 rebates;
135 items
Commercial Sprinkler Equipment -- 15 56 rebates;
964 items
35 rebates;
2266 items
12 rebates;
165 items
Home Water Reports -- -- -- -- 10,000
Home Efficiency Audits 466 519 592 683 662
Residential Sprinkler Audits 449 331 232 394 232
FCLWD Audits 112 82 67 94 97
ELCO Audits -- -- 42 48 68
HOA Sprinkler Audits 5 12 14 13 11
Commercial Sprinkler Audits 2 1 0 0 0
Commercial Facility Water
Assessments 81 77 93 268 281
Low Income Retrofit Program -- 250 homes 275 homes 275 homes 482 homes
Xeriscape Design Clinic/Assistance 55 50 37 -- 46
Garden-in-a-box -- 68 63 74 --
Landscape Plan Reviews 29 49 54 73 59
Irrigation Plan Review 11 42 44 49 69
Irrigation Site Inspection 21 24 28 34 52
Home efficiency loans/On-bill
Financing 13 6 5 0 7
46 Many of these properties have only ever been irrigated with raw water, thus the “start” date varies.
3.4
Packet Pg. 209
48
APPENDIX C: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 3
Water Efficiency and Conservation Activities and related actions support the following Strategic
Objectives from the City’s 2015-16 Strategic Plan.47
City of Fort Collins Strategic Objectives most relevant to Water Conservation Activities
Key Strategic Outcome: Environmental Health
4.1: Improve and protect wildlife habitat and the ecosystems of the Poudre River and other
urban streams.
4.2: Achieve environmental goals using the Sustainability Assessment framework.
4.6 Engage citizens in ways to educate and change behavior toward more sustainable living
practices.
4.7: Increase the community’s resiliency and preparedness for changes in climate, weather and
resource availability.
4.8: Protect and monitor water quality, and implement appropriate conservation efforts and
long-term water storage capability.
Key Strategic Outcome: Economic Health
3.5: Sustain high water quality to support the community and water-dependent businesses.
3.6: Maintain utility systems and services; infrastructure integrity; and stable, competitive
rates.
3.7: Support sustainable infill and redevelopment to meet climate action strategies.
3.9: Provide transparent, predictable and efficient processes for citizens and businesses
interacting with the City.
Key Strategic Outcome: Community and Neighborhood Livability
1.3: Direct and guide growth in the community through appropriate planning, annexation, land
use and development review processes.
1.11: Maintain and enhance attractive neighborhoods through City services, innovative
enforcement techniques, and voluntary compliance with City codes and regulations.
Key Strategic Outcome: Safe Community
5.10: Provide a high-quality, sustainable water supply that meets or exceeds all public health
standards and supports a healthy and safe community.
Key Strategic Outcome: High Performing Government
7.4 Strengthen methods of public engagement and reach all segments of the community.
7.6: Enhance the use of performance metrics to assess results.
7.9: Improve productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, customer service and citizen satisfaction in
all areas of the municipal organization.
7.10: Implement leading-edge and innovative practices that drive performance excellence and
quality improvements across all Service Areas.
7.11: Proactively influence policy at other levels of government regulation.
47 http://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/pdf/strategic-plan-2015.pdf
3.4
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
1
Water Efficiency Plan
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 5
3.5
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Work Session Outcomes
Direction Sought:
1. Does Council have specific feedback with regards to the Water
Efficiency Plan goals and objectives?
2. Is Council ready to consider adoption of the Water Efficiency Plan
by resolution in early 2016?
2
3.5
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Utilities Water Demand Planning
3
1988
Water
Supply
Policy
1992
Water
Demand
Policy
2003
Water
Supply and
Demand
Management
Policy
2010
Water
Conservation
Plan
2015
Water
Efficiency
Plan
City Strategic Plan
Climate Action Plan
3.5
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Efficiency Plan
Outline:
1. Water supply overview
2. Water demand overview
3. Planning & Goals
4. Plan for activities
5. Implementation &
Monitoring
6. Adoption & Approval
4
3.5
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
What We Do
5
Customer
Service
Water
Efficiency
Technical
Support
3.5
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Program
Benefits
6
§ Financial Benefits
§ Ex: $6.1 savings on Halligan storage project
§ Foster a conservation ethic and commitment to
sustainability
§ Community and supply system is more resilient
to drought
§ Reduction in supply planning demand level
3.5
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Role of Conservation
Planning Demand Level
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
Treated Water Demand
(million gallons)
Population (1,000s)
Treated Water Demand and Historic Planning levels
2003 planning demand level 2012 planning demand level
Historic Demand Historic Population
Projected Population
185 gpcd
150 gpcd
3.5
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Goals
8
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Historic Normalized Demand
3.5
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Goals
9
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Historic Normalized Demand
1992 Goal: 195 gpcd by 2010
3.5
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Goals
10
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Historic Normalized Demand
2003 Goal: 185 gpcd by 2010
3.5
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Goals
11
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Historic Normalized Demand
2010 Goal: 140 gpcd by 2020
3.5
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Water Conservation Goals
12
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Historic Normalized Demand
2015 Goal: 130
gpcd by 2030
3.5
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
2015 Goal
13
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Weather Normalized Water Demand (gpcd)
Projected Demand to reach new goal
Historic Normalized Demand
2015 Goal: 130
gpcd by 2030
3.5
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Areas of Opportunity
14
Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins system
capabilities and data
Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into
land use planning and building codes
Expand Commercial and Industrial sector strategies
Increase Community Water Literacy
3.5
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Implementation Principles
15
Make smart, data-driven decisions
Partner with community and statewide orgs
Partner within Utilities and across the City
3.5
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
THANK YOU!
Community Engagement
Technical Advisory Group & Presenters
Boards and Commissions
• Water Board
• Energy Board
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
Key Stakeholders
• Associated Landscape Contractors
of Colorado
• Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local
chapter of Trout Unlimited
• Save the Poudre
• Northern Colorado Home Builders
Association
NOTE: Utilities will continue presentations through January 2016
3.5
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Next steps
Outreach
Finalize Plan
Draft Return for
Resolution
17
Oct 2015 – Jan 2016
Oct 2015 - Feb 2016
Feb 2016
3.5
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Work Session Outcomes
Direction Sought:
1. Does Council have specific feedback with regards to the Water
Efficiency Plan goals and objectives?
2. Is Council ready to consider adoption of the Water Efficiency Plan
by resolution in early 2016?
18
3.5
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Community Recycling Ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider options to update and potentially expand Fort Collins’ Pay-As-You-Throw
(PAYT) ordinance into a Community Recycling Ordinance, in support of the Road to Zero Waste and Climate
Action Plan goals. Options include updating the price differential between trash can sizes under the current PAYT
ordinance for single-family homes, and expanding recycling to all multi-family and commercial locations in Fort
Collins. In two years, the options under consideration are bundling organics collection (food scraps, yard
trimmings, etc.) into the single-family service rates, and requiring composting of food scraps from grocers and
large restaurants.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have direction regarding options and timeline for
a. Updating the price differential for trash at single-family homes?
b. Recycling at multi-family complexes and businesses?
c. Organics collection options for single-family homes and grocers / large restaurants?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1995, Fort Collins City Council passed a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) ordinance, which governs how trash and
recycling service are provided by the private sector to residents of single-family homes in Fort Collins. This type of
ordinance has since become an EPA-recognized best practice for communities to increase recycling, and over
9,000 communities have adopted PAYT ordinances. Fort Collins’ PAYT ordinance has been an effective tool to
incentivize and grow recycling and waste diversion.
In 2013, City staff conducted a thorough public outreach and planning project, which resulted in a Road to Zero
Waste plan. This plan outlined implementation steps to meet the goals City Council adopted in December 2013 of
recycling or composting 75% of the community’s materials by 2020, 90% by 2025, and aiming for a goal of zero
waste by 2030. Zero Waste is much like a zero injury goal, and is a commitment to continuous improvement
regarding waste disposal.
One of the key implementation steps in the Road to Zero Waste plan was an update and expansion of Fort Collins
PAYT ordinance. The Community Recycling Ordinance is that project, and includes an update to the existing
ordinance, as well as a consideration of additional ways the ordinance can help achieve Fort Collins’ waste
reduction goals.
Over the past five months, staff worked with a consultant to evaluate best practices and develop
recommendations, worked with a stakeholder advisory group for ongoing feedback, and conducted extensive
public outreach. The options and recommendations below reflect the research and feedback received.
Attachment 1 provides a one-page summary of the options under consideration.
October 13, 2015 Page 2
Existing Ordinance
The existing PAYT ordinance applies only to single-family homes. It bundles together trash and recycling service
and cost, and requires that a resident’s trash bill is based on the volume of recycling to which they subscribe. It
requires a 100% price difference between sizes of trash cans and disallows any additional fees on a resident’s
trash bill. For example, if the smallest trash cart (32 gallons) were $15 / month, the medium cart (64 gallons)
would be $30/month, and the largest (96 gallons) $45 / month. These are round numbers meant for illustration –
the haulers set their own rates and the numbers listed here aren’t meant to represent the actual rate charged by
local haulers.
Potential Updates to Existing Ordinance (For Single-Family Home Residents)
Options 1a and 1b: Changes to the price difference between trash cart sizes
Over time, the PAYT ordinance has been updated to provide further refinement or to adapt to changes in the local
markets. Recently, changes in the contract at the Larimer County Recycling Center have resulted in charges to
haulers when delivering recyclables (for which they were paid in the past). Fort Collins is also a community that is
recycling more and more material, and may potentially add compost collection services in the future. Given the 20
year history of Fort Collins and other communities’ PAYT ordinances and the over 9,000 communities that have
adopted PAYT ordinances, there has been substantial research into the ideal PAYT ordinance. Research from
SERA, a recycling and trash economics consultancy, indicates the ideal price difference between trash cart sizes
to motivate waste reduction and recycling is 80%. For example, if a small trash cart were $15, a medium would be
$27, and a large $39. According to the same research, the minimal incline rate to still provide motivation is 50%,
which would result in example trash rates of $15, $22.50, and $30.
Due to the charges for recycling, the haulers are quite likely to raise rates for customers in 2016. A decreased
price difference between trash cart sizes would mean that residents who subscribe to the medium or large size
trash cans wouldn’t see as significant an increase in their rates. The decreased incline would also help keep
prices more affordable for larger trash subscribers if Council chose to bundle in organics collection service in the
future.
In order to best maintain the excellent recycling habits already established by Fort Collins residents while
minimizing the impact of rate increases on 64- and 96-gallon customers, staff is recommending an 80% price
difference between trash cart sizes. From conversations with trash haulers in Fort Collins, staff understands their
preference to be a 50% price difference between trash cart sizes, which is the minimal amount found to be
effective at encouraging recycling in a Pay-As-You-Throw system, but does not result in as much diversion as an
80% price difference. Input from the public via the online questionnaire during this project showed a strong
preference for keeping recycling and trash services bundled together and to not provide any disincentive for
recycling, but hasn’t distinguished between the 50% or 80% incline. Attachment 5 illustrates the impact of price
differences between trash cart sizes on example prices for service.
City-provided education to customers
The current ordinance requires haulers to send educational materials to their customers at least one time per
year. In order to provide more consistency for residents no matter which hauler they choose, and to utilize the
educational resources at the City, an update to the existing ordinance is being offered for the City to provide an
educational piece that would be included in haulers’ bills once a year. This piece could also include the hauler’s
logo on the material going to their customers.
Potential expansion of PAYT ordinance to multi-family housing
Roughly half of Fort Collins residents live in multi-family housing. Multi-family housing developments have to
subscribe separately to recycling and pay separately for the service. Local haulers report that 68% of their multi-
family customers have recycling service. Achieving recycling for residents of the 32% of multi-family housing that
don’t have recycling service could be accomplished by bundling recycling in with trash service, or by requiring
recycling service to be provided.
4
Packet Pg. 230
October 13, 2015 Page 3
City staff and consultants have evaluated these two options:
Bundle with trash service an amount of recycling equivalent to 25-50% of the volume of the total service,
similar to the Pay-As-You-Throw system for single-family homes
Require recycling service be provided to all multi-family and commercial customers, as separate charge on
their bills, and at a service level the hauler and customer agree upon.
Option 2a: Bundling 25-50% of service volume in recycling
While a specific ratio of recycling to trash service is not included in the single-family home service due to the
relatively consistent amount of recycling and trash generated at a single-family home, establishing a ratio is
important for multi-family and commercial since they generate significantly varying amounts of material per
location. For example, if a location subscribed to 4 cubic yards of trash service, this option could bundle in 2 cubic
yards of recycling service (resulting in 4 cubic yards of trash and 2 cubic yards of recycling). Bundling in service
ensures that all customers receive recycling service, and provides a level generally found to be adequate for
multi-family complexes (according to national waste sort studies and service levels seen at local apartment
complexes). If a location has more recycling than is bundled in, they can purchase additional recycling service
from their hauler. If a location is unable to recycle due to space restrictions, financial hardship, or other reason,
the City would have a system to apply for exemption from the bundling, which, if approved, would be valid for 24
months, allowing the location to plan for future recycling implementation.
Option 2b: Requiring recycling service
Requiring recycling service be provided could have a minimal impact on trash bills, depending on the amount
agreed upon by the hauler and the customer, but could also result in apartment complexes being significantly
underserved for recycling. The town of Vail implemented this system in 2014, and found that many locations
subscribed to minimal recycling service. If this option is implemented in Fort Collins, City staff would periodically
evaluate the effectiveness of the program. If it were found to be ineffective, and in a few years the City then
decided bundle recycling service or require a certain level of recycling, the trash haulers would then have to
undergo the expense of working with customers to realign service levels, delivering new containers and picking
up old containers. A benefit of bundling in an adequate amount of recycling initially is that the haulers only have to
undertake the cost of changing service for their customers that aren’t recycling once.
Additional information regarding multi-family recycling
If Council opts to adopt either of these options, City staff would expect to enhance and widely offer the services of
WRAP (the City’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program) to assist new recyclers with educational
materials, technical assistance, recycling signage etc. Staff would leverage the support of interns and volunteers
and assess whether additional staff support should be requested in the next BFO cycle.
City staff is sensitive to the affordability of housing in Fort Collins and this project’s impact to housing costs. City
staff confirmed that all subsidized affordable housing complexes in Fort Collins already have recycling, so would
be unlikely to have cost impacts from this project. The cost impact of starting recycling for the 32% of apartments
that don’t currently have it will be dependent on whether the property manager “right-sizes” their trash service.
It is important to note that the cost impact of either bundling recycling service or requiring recycling service is
highly dependent on whether the customer “right-sizes” their trash bin. Since the same volume of material is being
disposed of, just in two bins rather than one, most customers can decrease the size or service frequency of their
trash bin when they start recycling. If customers don’t right-size and are instead paying for excess trash capacity,
the cost impact for them is likely to be more significant.
4
Packet Pg. 231
October 13, 2015 Page 4
Example of service levels with and without right-sizing recycling
Current trash-only
service
Recycling plus trash,
NO right-sizing
Recycling plus trash,
WITH right-sizing
(using 50% of service
volume referenced in
option 2a)
Cubic yards (cy) of
service
4 cy of trash service 4 cy of trash service,
2 cy of recycling service
2 cy of recycling
service, 2 cy of trash
service
Overall volume of
service provided
4 cy total 6 cy total 4 cy total
Potential expansion of PAYT ordinance to commercial sector
According to data from local haulers, 48% of businesses in Fort Collins currently recycle. In order for Fort Collins
to meet its adopted recycling and composting goals, participation from the commercial sector is crucial. City staff
and consultants evaluated many options for including the commercial sector, and determined the same options
described above for multi-family housing would service the commercial sector well, with the same considerations
as listed above. One benefit of having a uniform recycling system across the commercial sector is that it provides
a level playing field – all businesses in Fort Collins will be participating in recycling. It is also important to note this
would be unlikely to create cost increases for the 48% of businesses that already recycle, and could provide cost
savings due to route efficiencies when haulers have more customer density.
Additionally, haulers have indicated an 18-month roll-out period would be required for either of the above
programs for the multi-family and commercial sectors, to allow time to contact customers, order and deliver
necessary bins, get customers set up etc. This timing is reflected in the staff recommendations.
Potential Organics Collection Options
Over 50% of the material currently being landfilled by the Fort Collins community could be diverted from the
landfill for composting. Staff is recommending a phased-in implementation of composting service through the
following three options.
Option 3: Requiring every hauler to offer optional curbside yard trimmings collection
Currently, one of the three haulers offers seasonal curbside collection of yard trimmings for residents, and another
is piloting it in a neighborhood. This provision would require that each hauler offer this service as an option for
their customers, for which a fee would be charged. The yard trimmings would not be allowed to be landfilled, but
must be delivered for composting or mulching.
Option 4: Starting 2017 or 2018, bundling in organics collection (including yard trimmings & food scraps)
Year-round collection of food scraps, yard trimmings, and food-soiled paper (such as paper towels and paper
plates) would make a substantial decrease to the amount of material landfilled by Fort Collins residents. Weekly
collection of these materials could be bundled in with residential trash and recycling service.
This approach has been adopted by several communities in Colorado, including Louisville, Lafayette, and
Boulder. There has been strong interest from Fort Collins residents during public outreach in having more options
for organics collection. Although implementation isn’t expected until 2017 or 2018, including this in the ordinance
now, with a set start date, allows haulers to plan for needed infrastructure and be ready to roll out the service.
Such advance notice of programs worked well in Austin to allow the private sector the security of knowing the
service will need to be provided, and giving them time to prepare for it.
4
Packet Pg. 232
October 13, 2015 Page 5
Option 5: Requiring food scraps subscription from grocers and large restaurants
A significant amount of food scraps and food-soiled paper is disposed of by grocers and large restaurants. For
these specific types of businesses, composting can have a significant impact, as generally 60-75% of their waste
is compostable food scraps and food-soiled paper.
Staff has confirmed that the majority of grocery stores in Fort Collins currently compost or plan to start in the next
6 months. Some large restaurants such as The Rio Grande also compost.
Service costs for compost collection have been at a premium in Fort Collins due to the prior long hauling distance
to composting locations (prior to 2014, the closest composter was in Commerce City), and low customer density.
As a result, few restaurants currently compost. Rates for compost collection service would be expected to
become more affordable as haulers acquire more customers and more efficiencies of route density, as well as
taking advantage of the shorter haul distance to Eaton. Haulers have indicated they would be able to provide this
service to customers after rolling out the additional recycling to commercial and multi-family customers, likely
starting in 24 months. Similar to organics service for the single-family sector, including the start date for the
service now allows haulers and processing facilities to plan for and adequately provide this service, rather than
await future Council action to be certain of a start date for service.
Other considerations and information regarding food scrap composting and waste-to-energy
In the last year, food scrap composting has become a more feasible option for Fort Collins, due to two food scrap
composting options coming on line.
A1 Organics in Eaton, a long-time yard trimmings composter, received their permit to accept food scraps last
year.
The largest bio-digester in North America, the Heartland Bio-digester, has recently opened in Kersey (near
Greeley). The Heartland Bio-digester not only composts food waste via a wet anaerobic digestion process,
but also generates, captures, and processes methane – an excellent waste-to-energy option. This natural
gas is pumped directly into the pipelines from the facility.
One concern that is often raised about composting food scraps is that of potentially increased pests. It is
important to keep in mind the material that would be put in a bin for composting is likely already being put out in a
trash bin – it would simply be placed in a different bin. The same measures that locations currently undertake to
prevent pests should be suitable for compost collection bins as well. In addition, compost bins are typically rinsed
out by service providers when they are emptied (with the rinse water being emptied into the collection vehicle).
Trash bins are not rinsed when serviced.
While options are being researched in the Community Recycling Ordinance project to provide organics collection
to the single-family and commercial sectors, there are additional complicating factors for the multi-family sector,
so organics collection for multi-family complexes is not being considered in this project. It would certainly be an
option for the haulers to extend organics collection service to complexes that want to participate, and may make
sense to provide organics collection service to all multi-family housing in the future.
Longer term options
One of the tools that were discussed extensively in this project is that of banning the landfill disposal of curbside
recyclable materials and/or yard trimmings and food scraps (organics). These are effective tools, but often are
considered after easy, widely-available service is already provided for collecting these materials.
The 2013-adopted disposal ban for cardboard has been an effective tool, but simply expanding it is not
anticipated to have a significant impact unless services to collect recyclables or compostables are implemented
City-wide. A stand-alone disposal ban has likely already had its beneficial impact on diversion in the community,
and additional tools are estimated to be needed prior to additional effectiveness of disposal bans. However, once
services are in place, implementing disposal bans may be useful to consider as an effective reinforcement for the
4
Packet Pg. 233
October 13, 2015 Page 6
use of those services. Staff is not recommending adoption of future-dated bans at this time, but is providing this
information as context for understanding potential next steps.
Public Engagement
Extensive public engagement was conducted throughout the development of the Community Recycling
Ordinance.
Staff provided information online, including an online questionnaire (received nearly 250 responses),
opportunity to receive email updates on the project (over 500 people subscribed), a 4-minute video overview
of the project, and project documents.
o Feedback from the open-ended questions in the online questionnaire centered around support for
maintaining the bundled recycling / trash service for single-family homes; ensuring that incentives to
recycle were maintained; interest in organics collection from single-family homes; and interest in recycling
at apartment complexes and businesses. A summary of responses is included in Attachment 8.
Presentations were given to 19 groups (full listing included in the Public Engagement Summary in Attachment
6), including business, multi-family, university, environmental and civic groups, as well as City boards and
commissions.
Four public meetings were held at locations spread throughout town with attendees from multiple sectors of
the community. Details are in the Public Engagement Summary attachment.
Staff shared information about the project at events including the CSU Lagoon Concert series, Larimer
County Farmers’ Market, and Sustainable Living Fair.
An advisory group engaged closely in the project development. Members are listed in the Public Engagement
Summary (Attachment 6). The advisory group’s perspectives and thoughtful input were beneficial to the project
development. As a whole, the group vacillated between bold ideas and innovative initiatives to concern for the
basics of making sure residents can put materials at the curb and have them hauled away. The group discussed
the ideas put forth in the Community Recycling Ordinance at length. Outstanding areas of concern regarding
business and multi-family options include potential cost increases’ impact on housing affordability, space
restrictions including small trash enclosures, and expensive asphalt damage due to additional trash truck traffic.
Staff also met individually with trash haulers regularly throughout the project to ensure the options were feasible
for them and to integrate their perspectives.
The majority of the groups with which City staff engaged were supportive of the project’s direction, and ASCSU
(the CSU student government) submitted a memorandum of support for the project, included as Attachment 10.
A summary of input from City boards and commissions is included in Attachment 9, and was generally supportive
of the project. The Air Quality Advisory Board passed a motion in support of the project.
An advisory group of City staff members also provided valuable insight and assistance for the project. Members
were from the following City departments: Communications and Public Involvement, Social Sustainability,
Economic Health, Finance, Utilities Customer Accounts, City Attorney’s Office.
Summary
Based on analysis of options to advance progress on the community zero waste goals and public input, staff
recommends the following modification to the PAYT ordinance to expand it to a Community Recycling Ordinance:
80% price difference between trash cart sizes for single-family homes
bundled trash and recycling for multi-family and commercial sectors (effective in 18 months)
4
Packet Pg. 234
October 13, 2015 Page 7
future (2017 or 2018) bundling of organics service for single-family homes
future (2017 or 2018) requirement of food scraps composting from grocers and large restaurants
Support for City goals
Implementing the recommended options is modeled to achieve the City’s goal of recycling or composting 75% of
discards by 2020. Additional innovative facilities and programs would likely be needed to continue progress
toward the ultimate goal of zero waste, but the Community Recycling Ordinance project is a significant step
toward achieving waste reduction. The Community Recycling Ordinance project is estimated to achieve a
reduction in 108,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually at full implementation. Details of the
amount of diversion and greenhouse gas reductions are included in Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comparison and Analysis of Options for Community Recycling Ordinance (PDF)
2. Current Recycling Programs in Fort Collins (PDF)
3. Community Recycling Ordinance Recommended Implementation Timeline (PDF)
4. Community Recycling Ordinance Alignment with Established City Plans and Goals (PDF)
5. Residential Pay-As-You-Throw Price Difference Between Trash Cart Sizes Options (PDF)
6. Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
7. Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (PDF)
8. Summary of Feedback from Online Questionnaire (PDF)
9. Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (PDF)
10. Memorandum of Support from ASCSU (PDF)
11. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 235
Comparison & Analysis of Options for Community Recycling Ordinance
Estimated
diversion
impact
Estimated
GHG impacts
(MTCO2E)
Estimated cost to user Comments
1a: Single-family 80%
price difference
between trash can
sizes
(recommended option)
No change from
current system
No change
from current
system
Cost savings for 64- and
96-gallon customers.
Helps to reduce impacts
to these customers from
higher rates for
additional services.
Research shows to be ideal
price differential – keeps
same diversion as 100%
price difference, but helps
keep costs reasonable for
64- and 96-gal users
1b: Single-family 50%
price difference
between trash can
sizes
(alternative option)
Less diversion
than current
system
Potential
increase
More significant cost
savings for 64- and 96-
gallon customers. Helps
to reduce impacts to
these customers from
higher rates for
additional services.
Research shows to be
minimal price differential to
maintain diversion impact of
Pay-As-You-Throw structure.
Less effective diversion
results than 80% price
difference.
2a: Multi-family /
commercial bundling
trash & recycling
service
(recommended option)
15,000 tons
Current City Programs and Regulations for Recycling in Fort Collins
WRAP stands for the Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program, a City program that started in 2012 and helps businesses and apartment complexes
start or improve recycling programs.
Education Incentive Mandate
Single-family
residential
General recycling education
Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance
Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
Businesses
General recycling education
Free waste audit,
educational materials (WRAP)
In-person outreach campaign (WRAP)
Rebate for starting recycling
(up to $500) (WRAP)
Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
Apartments
and condos
General recycling education
Free waste audit,
educational materials (WRAP)
Rebate for starting recycling
(up to $500) (WRAP)
Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
ATTACHMENT 2 4.2
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Current Recycling Programs in Fort Collins (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 1
Recommended Timeline of Implementation for Community Recycling Ordinance Options
Single-Family Homes Multi-Family Units Businesses
Short term:
Adjust Pay-As-You-
Throw
(~2016-2017)
Assumes increased
education and hands-on
assistance from City.
Current system:
Bundled recycling & trash service & costs
Pay more for more trash service
o 100% price difference between sizes of
trash carts
Add:
1a) 80% price difference between sizes of
trash carts
3) All haulers must offer option of weekly
yard trimmings collection (for separate
charge)
Current system:
Pay more for more trash service
68% of multi-family complexes subscribe
to service
Add:
2a) Bundle recycling in with trash
service, (25-50% of service volume as
recycling)
o Have hardship exclusion form /
process that is filed with City
o 18 month roll-out
Current system:
Pay more for more trash service
48% of businesses subscribe to service
Add:
2a) Bundle recycling in with trash
service (25-50% of service volume as
recycling)
o Have hardship exclusion form
/ process that is filed with City
o 18 month roll-out
Medium term:
Collect organics
(~2017 – 2018)
4) Phase in collection of food scraps, yard
trimmings, and food-soiled paper (bundled
with trash service)
Haulers have option to offer every-other-
week trash collection for customers with
organics collection
5) Require collection of food scraps
from grocers, large restaurants
Longer term:
Ban materials from
landfill disposal
(Action on these
options not
recommended until
other programs well-
Page 2
Alternative Options for Community Recycling Ordinance
Single-Family Homes Multi-Family Units Businesses
Short term:
Adjust Pay-As-You-
Throw
(~2016-2017)
Assumes increased
education and hands-on
assistance from City.
1b) 50% price difference between trash can
sizes
2b) Require recycling service
Separate fee on bill
Hauler / customer
determine amount of
recycling
2b) Require recycling service
Separate fee on bill
Hauler / customer
determine amount of
recycling
4.3
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Community Recycling Ordinance Recommended Implementation Timeline (3623 :
A
•Principle ENV 13: The City will provide Fort Collins residents and the business
community with information and education about waste management including waste
reduction, diversion, and proper disposal.
•Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental Protection Agency’s
integrated “hierarchy” of waste management to help protect all environmental
resources including air, soil, and water using source reduction as the primary approach,
followed in order by reuse, recycling/composting energy recovery using emerging
pollution-free technology, and landfill disposal (where methane gas capture is
employed) as a final resort.
• Principle ENV 15: The City will recognize that discarded materials, such as recyclable
commodities, reusable products, and organics, can be economic resources for the
community.
•Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the environment and public health by
using its regulatory authority.
City Plan
•4.6. Engage citizens in ways to educate and change behavior toward more sustainable
living practices.
•4.11. Demonstrate progress toward achieving zero waste
•within the community and the City organization.
Strategic Plan
•ENV 6: Percent decrease in municipal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from 2005
baseline
•ENV 7: Community per capita per day of solid waste generation
•ENV10: Community solid waste diversion rate
•ENV 12: Tons of community recycled or composted materials, including cardboard
Budgeting for
Outcomes
Metrics
•Waste Diversion Goals
•Recycle or compost 75% of community's discards by 2020
•Recycle or compost 90% of community's discards by 2025
•Zero waste by 2030
•Reduce per capita waste generation to 2.8 pounds / day by 2025
•Climate Action Goals
•20% beow 2005 levels by 2020
•80% below 2005 by 2030
•Carbon neutral by 2050
City Council-
Adopted
Goals
Alignment of Community Recycling Ordinance Project with Established Plans and Goals
ATTACHMENT 4
4.4
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Community Recycling Ordinance Alignment with Established City Plans and Goals (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Please note that prices are meant only as examples – actual pricing is set by trash and recycling haulers.
$30
$45
$27
$39
$15
$23
$30
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
32 gallon price 64 gallon price 96 gallon price
Examples of Varying Price Differences Between Trash Cart
Sizes in Single-Family Pay-As-You-Throw Ordinance
100% (current)
80% (recommended)
50% (alternative)
ATTACHMENT 5
4.5
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Residential Pay-As-You-Throw Price Difference Between Trash Cart Sizes Options (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 1
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: Community Recycling Ordinance
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Collaborate with key stakeholders to develop new policy
recommendations based on community feedback.
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What is important to keep about our current recycling system Fort Collins and which
next steps are of most interest in meeting our waste reduction goals as a community?
City Boards and Commissions Presentations
Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Aug. 6
Senior Advisory Board, Sept. 9
Economic Advisory Board, Sept. 16
Natural Resources Advisory Board, Sept. 16
Air Quality Advisory Board, Sept 21
Stakeholder Group Presentations / Meetings
All Property Services, July 16
Sustainable Living Association, July 21
Chamber LLAC, July 24
League of Women Voters, July 30
ASCSU Community Affairs, Aug. 4
ClimateWise Members, Aug. 11
Multi-Family Managers, Aug. 11
Northern Colorado Clean Cities Coalition, Aug. 17
CSU Executive Faculty Committee, Aug. 25
North Fort Collins Business Assoc’n, Aug. 26
South Fort Collins Business Association, Sept. 8
City Issues and Answers, Sept. 10
Northern Colorado Rental Housing Assoc’n, Sept. 15
CSU President’s Sustainability Committee, Sept. 21
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CONDUCTED:
Public Meetings
• June 30, 6:30 p.m.,
215 N. Mason St.
Community Room
• July 1, 11:30 a.m.
Senior Center
• August 11, 6:30 p.m.
Council Tree Library
•August 12, 11:30 a.m.
Chamber of Commerce
Public Events
• CSU Lagoon Concert
Series
• Every Wednesday July
1 - Aug 5
• Larimer County
Farmers' Market
• September 12
• Sustainable Living Fair
• September 12, 13
• CSU International
Women's Welcome
• September 1
Online & Mobile
Activities
• Project website with
related documents
•Online questionnaire
• 202 responses
• 4 min YouTube video
about project
Page 2
Advisory Boards
External Advisory Board (met June 22, July 21, Aug. 5, Aug. 12, Aug. 24, Sept. 14)
Members:
Bob Mann, Natural Resources Advisory
Board
Joe Piesman, resident
Sarah Gallup, resident
John Drigot, Poudre Valley Hospital
Stacey Baumgarn, CSU
John Holcomb, Poudre School District
Ray Meyer, Ram Waste
John Puma, Ram Waste
JP Puma, Ram Waste
Matt Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation
John Newman, Waste Not
Todd Noe, Waste Management
Rich Morford, Waste Management
Scott Hutchings, Waste Management
Pete Gazlay, Total Facility Care & Chamber
of Commerce LLAC President
Carrie Gillis, multi-family property
management, Chamber of Commerce LLAC
member
Stephen Gillette, Larimer County Solid
Waste
Hunter Buffington, Sustainable Fort Collins
Mary Anderson, Sierra Club
Georgia Locker, League of Women Voters
Ginny Sawyer, facilitator
Internal Advisory Board (met May 27, July 23, Aug. 5, Aug. 26, Sept. 28)
Members from: Communications and Public Involvement, Social Sustainability, Economic Health, Finance, Utilities
Customer Accounts, City Attorney’s office.
4.6
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
1
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: 9/23/15
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment Summary for Community Recycling Ordinance
Key issues identified
Environmental:
o Additional recycling generated by the Community Recycling Ordinance will help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and preserve natural resources.
o Collecting additional materials will likely mean additional collection vehicles in operation in Fort Collins
Social:
o Concern of potential impact of increased pricing on lower income residents
Economic:
o It is unclear whether this project results in a net positive for the local economy
o Additional service provided by haulers requires investments in staff and infrastructure
Suggested mitigation actions
Environmental:
o Haulers will maximize efficiencies in their routes and the benefits of recycling or composting the
materials collected outweighs the impacts of their collection and hauling.
Social:
o Focus educational messaging around “right sizing” options to decrease trash bills
o 80% differential between trash cart sizes to single-family rates decreases the price for medium and large
size trash subscribers
Economic:
o Phasing in requirements
o When companies right-size their bins, they are likely to have minimal impact on their cost of service
Economic , 0.3 Social , 0.2
Environmental
1.5
Rating
Average, 1.1
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Sustainability Rating
Rating without mitigation Rating with mitigation
Rating Legend
3 Very positive
2 Moderately positive
1 Slightly positive
0 Not relevant or neutral
-1 Slightly negative
-2 Moderately negative,
impact likely
-3 Very negative, impact
expected
ATTACHMENT 7
4.7
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
2
City of Fort Collins SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT)
(September 2015)
Creating a sustainable community
Plan Fort Collins is an expression of the community’s resolve to act sustainably: to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize
environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the
ecosystems upon which we depend.
Brief description of proposal
This project is an implementation of the Road to Zero Waste plan, and proposes to update the community’s main recycling ordinance by:
Updating the current Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance
o Allow haulers to charge an 80% price difference between the sizes of trash carts rather than the current 100% price difference
between trash cart sizes
Expanding the current recycling ordinance
o Require weekly yard trimmings collection option for single-family homes
o Require multi-family and commercial customers to have recycling service bundled in with trash service
o Require collection of food scraps from large grocers and restaurants in 2017 or 2018
o Create a phase-in plan for collecting yard trimmings and food scraps from single-family home residents starting in 2017 or 2018
Staff lead(s):
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner, Environmental Services, 970-221-6288
4.7
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
3
Social Equity
Described: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to
civil, political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational
opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion,
and accommodating the differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all.
Goal/Outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system that ensures access to employment, food, housing,
clothing, education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Additionally, we support equal
access to services and seek to avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship
status, race/ethnicity, gender, relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A
community in which basic human rights are addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources
to develop their capacity. This tool will help identify how the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the
decisions affect one or more social groups. Areas of consideration in creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs,
inclusion, community safety, culture, neighborhoods, and advancing social equity.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis.
Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan?
Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of
expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
Proposal Description
1. Meeting Basic Human Needs
• How does the proposal impact access to food,
shelter, employment, health care, educational and
recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy living
environment or social services?
• Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of
individuals, or the status of public health in our
community?
• How does this proposal contribute to helping people
achieve
and maintain an adequate standard of living, including
housing,
or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy
Analysis/Discussion
The updated Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) ordinance will still enable
residents to decrease their trash generation and save money on their
trash bills
Increased recycling has a documented positive effect on job
creation.
Due to the current recyclables processing contract, trash and
recycling haulers need to increase their current rates. Adding or
expanding recycling could increase the cost of trash service, which
may result in a corresponding cost increase for residents, especially
renters.
4.7
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
4
families,
or other resiliency factors?
By recycling and composting more materials, will expand the lifespan
of the Larimer County landfill. This will help delay the significant
trash cost increase that will likely result when the Larimer County
landfill closes.
Expanding Pay-As-You-Throw to multifamily ensures equal access to
recycling opportunities for all community members.
These policies will have extensive promotional campaigns to
implement them. Those will highlight the best options are to reduce
wasting and reuse products more. Many waste reduction programs
will benefit lower income residents by increasing the amount and
quality of donated or lower cost food, clothing, furniture and
building materials available to them through thrift stores and social
service agencies.
Most multifamily complexes and businesses should be able to
decrease trash services (by decreasing the size of trash containers
collected, or the frequency of collection) by an equal amount. It’s
the same amount of material being collected.
2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive
• Are there any inequities to specific population subsets in
this proposal? If so, how will they be addressed?
• Does this proposal meet the standards of the
Americans with Disabilities Act?
• How does this proposal support the participation,
growth and healthy development of our youth? Does it
include Developmental Assets?
• If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our
community (i.e.
youth, persons with disabilities, etc.)
Currently roughly half of Fort Collins residents live in multi-family
housing. Only 68% of multi-family housing has recycling service. The
remaining 32% of multi-family housing residents currently are forced
to self-haul their recycling to the drop-off center or are excluded
from recycling. This proposal would ensure all residents have access
to recycling where they live, no matter their type of housing.
Due to the landfill ban on cardboard, some apartment complexes
have chosen to not provide recycling on site, but have included in
their leases that residents must self-haul their recyclables to a
recycling site, placing an extra burden on them (an especially difficult
one if they don’t have a vehicle).
Concerns exist about adding recycling service increasing trash bills,
thereby affecting housing affordability.
All subsidized affordable housing units in Fort Collins already have
adequate recycling, so will not be affected by the recycling
4.7
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
5
expansion requirements. This also highlights that recycling is not a
significant factor in housing affordability.
If disabled residents live in multi-family housing, it is very unlikely
they would be able to self-haul their recyclables to a drop-off center.
Having recycling service at their housing location would enable
disabled residents to recycle.
All schools in Poudre School District recycle. Having recycling at all
residences ensures youth have consistent recycling messaging and
opportunities at home and at school.
3. Ensuring Community Safety
• How does this proposal address the specific safety and
personal security needs of groups within the community,
including women, people with disabilities, seniors,
minorities, religious groups, children, immigrants,
workers and others?
Residents who obtain donated food or reused clothing, furniture and
building materials helps low-income residents meet their basic
needs.
Decreasing illegal dumping helps promote cleanliness and safety
Reduction of harmful air pollutants by removing organics from
landfill.
4. Culture
• Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does it
affirm or deny the cultures of diverse communities?
• How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic
and
cultural expression?
This proposal is culturally unbiased; this ordinance would apply to all
citizens with a community-wide benefit.
The culture of Fort Collins is one of sustainability; this project is
consistent with, allows participation of all residents in, and confirms
that culture.
5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods
• How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins
neighborhoods?
• How are community members, stakeholders and
interested parties provided with opportunities for
meaningful participation in the decision making process of
this proposal?
• How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and
stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our
community?
Enhances community and neighborhood cohesion through outreach
and education programs employed to implement these programs,
and cooperation with neighborhood based community gardens,
composting and farmers markets.
ESD staff has conducted extensive community outreach throughout
this project (before options were created, and through the process
of narrowing down recommendations). Participation options have
included online comments and surveys, meetings with different
stakeholders and community groups, and in-person Public Open
Houses that were conducted at various times of the day and
locations throughout the community.
Through expanded recycling and composting, this proposal provides
4.7
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
6
residents pride in reducing the amount of material sent to landfill
Ordinance marketing materials will promote opportunities for
neighbors to connect with each other regarding recycling education
and resources for neighborhoods to support recycling.
Additional recycling and yard waste containers could be difficult to
store in compliance with the screened containers ordinance for
homes with no fence or garage (or in a small garage).
6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity
• What plans have been made to communicate about and
share the activities and impacts of this proposal within
the City organization and/or the community?
• How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and
cooperation between the City organization and community
members?
ESD staff has communicated about the development of this project
and received input from a wide variety of community members and
City staff.
Once implemented, this project will involve extensive education and
assistance to those implementing it.
Social Equity Summary
Key issues:
Concern of potential impact of increased pricing on lower income residents
Potential mitigation strategies:
Focus educational messaging around “right sizing” options to decrease trash bills
80% differential between trash cart sizes to single-family rates decreases the price for medium and large size trash subscribers
Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
Very
negative,
impact
4.7
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
7
0.2 likely expected
xxxx xxx xx
Environmental Health
Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that
contribute to climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevent pollution, reduce use, promote reuse, and
recycle natural resources.
Goal/Outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions
necessary for support of future generations of all species. Avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually
review all activities to identify and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency;
conserve water; reduce consumption and waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce
reliance on non-renewable resources.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for
any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent
to a proposal - please include them in the analysis.
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action
plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level
of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Environmental Impact
• Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or
processes related to land, water, air, or plant or
animal communities?
• Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to
the use of resources?
• Will this proposal promote or support education in
prevention of pollution, and effective practices for
reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources?
• Does this proposal require or promote the continuous
improvement of the environmental performance of the
City organization or community?
• Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic
elements of the community?
Analysis/Discussion
The goal of this project is to recycle a substantial amount of material
that is currently being landfilled.
Additional education about recycling, reducing trash bin size /
service (“right-sizing” trash bins) and hands-on assistance for doing
so are central to this project.
Preventing material from being landfilled prevents potential air and
water pollution from the landfill.
This project is capable of generating enough additional recycling and
composting to meet the City’s goal of recycling or composting 75% of
materials by 2020 compared to the current rate of 68% waste
4.7
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
8
reduction.
2. Climate Change
• Does this proposal directly generate or require the
generation of greenhouse gases (such as through
electricity consumption or transportation)?
• How does this proposal align with the carbon reduction
goals for
2020 goal adopted by the City Council?
• Will this proposal, or ongoing operations result in an
increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?
• How does this proposal affect the community’s efforts to
reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse
climate
change activities?
By increasing recycling, less materials will be created from natural
resources resulting in energy savings and significant greenhouse gas
prevention.
This project prevents the landfilling of organic materials, which
generate methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, if sent to
the landfill.
The implementation plan for the Climate Action Plan calls for this
project as a first implementation step.
Although this project could result in an increase in trucks collecting
materials from customers, the recycling and composting of the
materials significantly outweighs the impacts from additional
collection vehicles.
This project could also help reduce vehicle miles traveled due to
multi-family residents now being able to recycle on site who
previously had to drive their recyclables to a recycling drop-off
center.
The Road to Zero Waste Plan recommended an approach for haulers
to consider that would not increase the number of trucks once these
full programs are implemented that would collect organics every
week and recycling and trash every other week. That would enable
haulers to provide services with just 2 trucks per route, the same as
they currently use.
3. Protect, Preserve, Restore
• Does this proposal result in the development or
modification of land resources or ecosystem functions?
• Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures
related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat,
greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or
the urban growth boundary
• How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or
restore important ecological functions or processes?
With the Larimer County Landfill quickly filling up, this ordinance has
the potential to extend the life of the landfill.
4.7
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
9
4. Pollution Prevention
• Does this proposal generate, or cause to be
generated, waste products that can contaminate the
environment?
• Does this proposal require or promote pollution
prevention through choice of materials, chemicals,
operational practices and/or engineering controls?
• Does this proposal require or promote prevention of
pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants
regulated by the state or federal government?
• Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or
pollution?
This project is not anticipated to generate pollutants. By recycling or
composting materials, it is likely to prevent air and water pollution
from local landfills.
These policies will promote pollution prevention and reducing
wasting through outreach and education programs associated with
their implementation.
5. Rethink, Replace, Reduce, Reuse, Recirculate/Recycle
• Does this proposal prioritize the rethinking of the materials
or goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use,
reuse of current natural resources or materials or energy
products, or result in byproducts that are recyclable or can
be re-circulated?
Recycling, composting, and reducing waste are the primary
objectives of this project
6. Emphasize Local
• Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials,
vendors, and or services to reduce resources and
environmental impact of producing and transporting
proposed goods and materials?
• Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects
somewhere other than the place where the action will take
place?
The more recycled materials are generated locally, the greater the
likelihood that a company using recycled materials as a source
material could operate in Fort Collins.
Composting and organics recycling processes must be done locally,
as these materials cannot be shipped great distances. As a result of
the proposed policies, local businesses will be able to invest in
processing organics even more locally, in Larimer County.
Environmental Health Summary
Key issues:
Additional recycling generated by the Community Recycling Ordinance will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve
natural resources.
4.7
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
10
Collecting additional materials will likely mean additional collection vehicles in operation in Fort Collins
Potential mitigation strategies:
Haulers will maximize efficiencies in their routes and the benefits of recycling or composting the materials collected outweighs
the impacts of their collection and hauling.
Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would
be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
2.7
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
xxxxx xx
Economic Health
Described: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a
diverse economy, enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of
family waged jobs.
Goal/Outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has
advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or
may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Infrastructure and Government
• How will this proposal benefit the local economy?
• If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it
designed and will it be managed to optimize the use of
Analysis/Discussion
Increased recycling has a documented positive effect on job creation.
The increased services provided for in this project are provided by the
private sector and are fully funded by user fees.
4.7
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
11
resources including operating in a fossil fuel constrained
society?
• Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants,
user fees or charges, staged development, or partnering
with another agency?
• How will the proposal impact business growth or
operations
(ability to complete desired project or remain in operation),
such
as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital?
By the City adopting these policies, haulers and processors are able to
get financing to buy equipment to meet this new demand for
increased services.
This proposal will likely increase the cost of trash service for
businesses, including small businesses, and apartment complexes that
do not currently recycle.
These requirements would provide a level playing field for businesses
and apartment complexes – every business and apartment complex
would have (and have to pay for) similar levels of recycling service
(48% of businesses currently have recycling service in Fort Collins and
68% of apartment complexes, according to trash hauling companies.)
There is a plan to phase in the services to allow trash haulers to invest
in additional infrastructure over time rather than all at once.
There is the potential to have little impact on businesses since the
increased cost in recycling will be offset by the decrease in trash haul
fees if locations “right size” or decrease their trash bins.
Due to having more customer density and resulting economies of
scale, it is possible that rates for locations that already recycle may
slightly decrease.
This project will result in additional costs for businesses that are
providing the services.
2. Employment and Training
• What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation
within Larimer County?
• Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities
available?
• How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local
workforce?
Increased recycling has a documented positive effect on job creation.
Volunteer opportunities will likely be created to assist with education
about the new ordinance.
Additional staff for the trash / recycling hauling companies will likely
be hired as a result of this project.
Increased emphasis on recycling and related technology could
provide opportunities for job training with local community colleges
The recycling and composting industries provide employment at
wages across the wage and skills spectrum, many with upward
mobility opportunities.
Possible opportunities for waste/recycling technician job creation.
3. Diversified and Innovative Economy
• How does this proposal support innovative or
Many of the technologies that will be used in response to these
policies are “clean technologies” and the jobs created are “green”
4.7
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
12
entrepreneurial activity?
• Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this
proposal?
• How will the proposal impact start-up or existing
businesses or
development projects?
jobs.
By adopting these policies, the City will be recognized as an
innovative policy leader which will attract additional investments in
technology and program innovations.
Colorado State University is already demonstrating innovative
technologies for composting and organics recycling. CSU could help
evaluate, study, design and help private companies develop new
products and services to meet the new demand of these policies.
See bullets in sections 1 and 2 about job creation and impact to
existing businesses.
Possible skills-up training opportunity for NFP companies that
partner with for-profit companies who collect recycling.
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses
• What percentage of this proposal budget relies on local
services or products? Identify purchases from Larimer
County and the State of Colorado.
• Will this proposal enhance the tools available to
businesses to incorporate more sustainable practices in
operations and products?
• Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially
responsible leadership of local businesses or educate
businesses on triple bottom line practices?
This project will be essential in helping businesses and apartment
complexes who do not currently recycle to adopt this sustainable
practice, which not only conserves natural resources, but will
provide education to employees, customers, and residents about
recycling. The City will provide educational materials and assistance
programs, including WRAP and ClimateWise, to help with this
adoption and education.
May provide additional opportunities to partner with ClimateWise
partners on innovative ideas and collaboration.
This project will enhance the sustainable reputation of Fort Collins,
attracting attention to existing Fort Collins businesses and
potentially attracting additional businesses or skilled employees with
an interest in sustainability.
Some major businesses in Fort Collins have reported that they have
diverted over 90% of their discarded materials from landfills and
incinerators, including: New Belgium Brewery, Hewlett-Packard,
Woodward, Anheuser-Busch, and Intel. New Belgium Brewery is
being certified as a Zero Waste Facility by the U.S. Zero Waste
Business Council.
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy
This project supports the City Council-adopted Economic Health
Department Strategic Plan’s focus on “The Climate Economy”.
4.7
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
13
Economic Prosperity Summary
Key issues:
It is unclear whether this project results in a net positive for the local economy
Additional service provided by haulers requires investments in staff and infrastructure
Potential mitigation strategies:
Phasing in requirements
When companies right-size their bins, they are likely to have minimal impact on their cost of service
Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity will be:
Please reach a consensus on the rating and enter an “x” in one of the following boxes
0.3
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
xxxx ½ x ½ xx
4.7
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
COMMUNITY RECYCLING ORDINANCE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE: SUMMARY OF THEMES
In June 2015, an online questionnaire was posted at fcgov.com/recycling/update.php for members of the public to share
their opinions on the current recycling system in Fort Collins and about changes they’d like to see. In September, the
questionnaire was replaced with new questions asking opinions about the draft options generated for the Community
Recycling Ordinance. The questions for both were intentionally open-ended to ensure the responses reflect the issues
most important to respondents. The respondents were self-selected and the summary provided is not statistically
significant.
Key themes from questionnaire #1 (total responses: 172)
Supportive of including multi-family properties in recycling (103)
Supportive of including commercial properties in recycling (100)
Add curbside yard waste collection (51)
Like the current Pay-As-You-Throw system (41)
o keeping recycling and trash service bundled / not paying extra for recycling
Would like recycling picked up weekly (24)
Offer a free yard waste drop-off (13)
Want more education (15)
Key themes from questionnaire #2 (total responses: 76)
In favor of both yard waste and food scraps curbside collection (35)
Inclusion of multi-family and commercial properties in Pay-As-You-Throw (24)
Keep the price of services low (15)
Supportive of materials ban (12)
Continue improving the current system (10)
Do not like any of the options (8)
Implement some of the proposed options sooner (4)
Questions asked in questionnaire #1
1. What about Fort Collins single-family trash and recycling service should stay the same? What would you like to
change?
2. Currently, the landfill ban on cardboard and electronics are the only recycling ordinances that apply to multi-family
properties within the City. Do you think other recycling ordinances should apply to multi-family properties and why?
3. Currently, the landfill ban on cardboard and electronics are the only recycling ordinances that apply to commercial
properties within the City. Do you think other recycling ordinances should apply to commercial properties and why?
4. What about yard waste recycling/disposal in Fort Collins works for you? What would you change?
5. Do you have any other comments about recycling in Fort Collins?
Questions asked in questionnaire #2
1. What do you like about the proposed options for the Community Recycling Ordinance and why?
2. What would you change about the proposed options for the Community Recycling Ordinance and why?
3. Do you have questions about the proposed options for the Community Recycling Ordinance?
4. Are there any options not included that you would like to see included? If so, what are they and why are they
important?
5. What is the main message you’d like the City to hear about recycling in Fort Collins?
ATTACHMENT 8
4.8
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Online Questionnaire (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 1
Summary of Feedback from City Boards and Commissions
MINUTES : CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2015
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Troy Jones, chair
Eloise Emery
Jeffrey Johnson
Diane Cohn
Terence Hoaglund
Tatiana Martin
Curt Lyons
AGENDA ITEM 1: Community Recycling Ordinance
Reasons recycling is important for more than environment: economic development potential, large employment
industry, produces more jobs than landfilling, energy savings from recycling, etc. Ex: takes 95% less energy to recycle
aluminum than to create new. Significant GHG benefits to recycling as well. Recycling system from single-family
residential: 1. Put recycling at curb, 2. Pay hauler, 3. To Larimer county recycling center, 4. Materials recovery facility in
Denver (contaminates to landfill), 5. End markets (international) where made into new products. Recyclables are at a
low value in market right now and have a more challenging contract at the recycling center. Can address shifts in market
and system with this regularly scheduled update. Have a 6-10% contamination rate, which is reasonable. Pay-as-you-
Throw ordinance was adopted in 1995; has become best practice. This update includes potential for expansion. Road to
Zero Waste includes goal of 75% diversion by 2020, 95% by 2025, and 0 waste by 2030. City also has landfill bans on
electronic waste and cardboard. Existing programs include education to all, free waste audits and rebates for businesses
and multifamily residential, Pay-as-you-Throw for single-family residential, etc. Caroline showed graph of diversion
rates: landfilled materials have remained consistent despite increase in population. Recycling and composting has
increased steadily; much of recent uptick is from construction dirt (mall, Woodward, flood rebuilding). Pay-as-you-Throw
ordinance requires trash and recycling rates are bundled for single-family residential, so no additional charge for
recycling. Also requires trash pricing based on volume of trash can subscription. Multifamily residential and businesses
are combined into commercial trash system. In Fort Collins, commercial prices are based on size of dumpster and
recycling is a separate fee. 95% of single-family homes recycle, 67% of multifamily, and 48% of businesses. Disparate
impact of ease of recycling for those living in multifamily. Currently industrial has highest diversion rate. This project
does not focus on industrial recycling. Community Recycling Ordinance looks at adapting program to current needs,
expanding Pay-as-you-Throw to commercial customers, and including yard waste collection options. Project includes
case studies (available on website at fcgov.com/recycling/update.php) and will include spectrum of
options/recommendations, public outreach (public meetings, stakeholder meetings, and community advisory group),
and Council work session October 13. Two public meetings next week. Online survey, email newsletter, and FAQs
available online.
ATTACHMENT 9
4.9
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 2
Comments/Q&A
Sue: Why is this important to affordable housing?
o Caroline: Adding additional service impacts trash bills. How much service, of what type, and how much is
it worth paying for?
o Sue: Will any options bundle like current ordinance for multifamily.
Caroline: One main option is to expand Pay-as-you-Throw to commercial and multifamily,
bundling a certain amount of recycling with trash service automatically and having additional
recycling available at lower cost than trash. In tandem could add user responsibility for
recycling: not allowing recyclables to be put in the trash. Communities tend to adopt together.
Also discussing what to do with bulky goods. Multifamily has issues with dumping of bulky goods
(ex: furniture, appliances, mattresses). Considering automatic inclusion of bulky goods collection
in single-family residential.
Troy: Haulers used to get paid and now paying for recycling?
o Caroline: Yes. Customers have subscribed to service. Hauler used to get paid for recyclables. Majority of
cost is overhead: trucks, employees, gas, etc. Fees at recycling facility are smaller portion of cost but do
impact business. Want to create ordinance that is flexible with market.
Troy: Most of affordable housing in Fort Collins is multifamily. Any political will at Council level to subsidize
recycling?
o Tatiana: Or incentives?
Caroline: If expanded Pay-as-you-Throw to commercial and multifamily, the goal is to incentivize
recycling. Project is not to point where can understand impact to bills yet. Have fixed amount of
waste, whether going out in trash or recycling. People forget that can downsize trash bin when
add recycling, which can make it cost neutral or even cost beneficial.
o Tatiana: Current HOA doesn’t offer recycling as it is not cost beneficial.
Eloise: Went to board of her HOA and talked them into adding recycling.
o Eloise: WRAP program?
Caroline: Offers rebates for starting recycling program. Goal is to shave off cost speed bump of
starting service. Businesses need to purchase recycling bins for inside or create an enclosure, so
a rebate is available for them too.
Diane: Want affordable housing developers to not have to add costs to projects. Want to make absolutely sure
that have options, but additional protections for cost for affordable housing units and developers. For ongoing
cost of service.
o Troy: If translates to higher rent want to prevent that.
o Diane: Don’t want to add fees to low income people.
Terence: Need more education on illegal dumping in dumpsters.
o Caroline: Have been working with consultants on this issue. Have not found a perfect solution, but
aware of the problem.
Troy: Good goal to have all residents recycle. Someone has to pay for it. Recommend Council finding money to
subsidize affordable housing recycling to offset impact that could change rent.
o Sue: Or create different rate for qualified affordable housing.
o Troy: Would be nice if community as whole has value to not over burden those who cannot afford, but
still give opportunity.
o Caroline: Have had calls about cardboard ordinance where property manager is not providing cardboard
recycling (not required), but then residents have to self-haul.
4.9
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 3
MINUTES: CITY OF FORT COLLINS SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Time: 11:30–1:30pm
Call to order 11:26 am
I. Administrative Items
a. Attendance: Rich Feller, Katie Stieber, Bill Hilsmeier, Irisa Luft, Suzanne King, Patricia Hously, Diane
Smith
i. Unexcused: Alan Beatty, Lawrence Bontempo
ii. Excused: Angela Condit, Ann Lefler, Joann Thomas
b. Correspondence: Bridging the Gap postcard, Aging Mastery flyer
c. Updates on SAB activities last month: none
II. Public Participation: none
III. Speakers
a. Pete Iengo – Utilities Low Income Assistance
b. Caroline Mitchell – Community Recycling Ordinance
IV. Comments of City Council Periodic Review – on agenda in error
V. New Business
a. Education
b. Outreach
c. Advocacy
i. Response to community recycling – given during presentation
ii. Letter to Affordable Housing Board
1. Discussion on condominiums and associations
Meeting Adjourned: 1:32 PM
4.9
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 4
MINUTES: CITY OF FORT COLLINS ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 11:00am–1:30pm
Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent
Linda Stanley Sam Solt, Chair
Denny Otsuga Ann Hutchison
Kim Dale (arrived 11:50) Kristin Owens
Ted Settle
Glen Colton
AGENDA ITEM 3—Community Recycling Ordinance
In 1995 passed Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance, which has since become a best practice. Has been updated a few times
throughout the years. Two part project: 1. Continuous improvement, 2. Tool for greater applications. Council has
adopted a diversion rate goal of 50% in 1999, which has been surpassed. New goals include 75% diversion by 2020. In
2007 passed landfill ban on electronics, in 2013 added ban on cardboard. Role of City is education, policy framework and
ordinances. Hauling is done by private companies. Current ordinance: trash and recycling rates are bundled for single-
family residential and is based on volume of can subscription. Commercial and multifamily are generally serviced with
dumpsters. Pricing is based on volume and service frequency. Recycling is not bundled, but is a separate service. 95% of
single-family homes, 68% of multifamily complexes, and 48% of commercial have subscribed to recycling. Have
researched case studies, best practices, and have done extensive community outreach. Working with Zero Waste
Associates on data collection and draft options for the ordinance. Draft options developed from research and feedback:
allowing a baseline fee to mitigate economic impact of diversion, requiring recycling service for all, having all haulers
offer yard trimming collection for single-family residential, exploring having businesses that create large amounts of
food scraps/organics compost, etc. Massive bio-digester has been built in Kersey: primarily built for feedlot and dairy
waste, but can take food scraps. Generates and captures methane. Other options in medium term include phasing in
organics collection (food scraps with yard trimmings). Many communities moving to every other week for trash when
add organics to weekly collection. Medium term: follow single-family model and bundle trash and recycling for
multifamily and business. Also thinking about phasing in organics for businesses. Longer term potentially expanding
landfill ban on recyclables/organics. Greatest amount of diversion can come from compostables. Could get 75%
diversion by 2020 with these options. Goal is to not have negative economic impact. However, adding 96 gallon cart of
recycling is about $20-30 per month. If decrease trash service by amount of recycling diverted, could mitigate additional
cost. Additional benefits include meeting CAP and RZW goals, positive effect on job creation by not landfilling (approx.
250 jobs), extends life of landfill which only has 10 years left. Anticipate significant increase in trash service prices when
landfill closes.
Discussion/Q & A:
Pricing is not set, but ratio is?
o Yes.
o Price difference is negligible between sizes.
HOAs can get own contracts, but price difference should be 100% between sizes.
Some people don’t subscribe to trash service at all.
o Percentages are of those who have trash service. One of complaints hearing at apartment complexes
and businesses is illegal dumping. Discussing ideas about enforcing trash subscription.
Municipalities in Japan are requiring subscription to trash service because cost got so high
dumping was becoming a concern.
In Fort Collins, open dumping has not been an issue.
4.9
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 5
4.9
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 6
Right now restaurants are putting food waste into the trash. Have we thought about a way to incentivize
composting rather than requiring? Provide bins, service, etc. Would like to see trash company come for
recyclables every week. Recyclables are far more volume than trash.
o Every week recycling would raise rates. Cost is in truck and driver. Have been in close contact with trash
haulers throughout the process. They suggest people can get more than one recycling bin.
o Adding can for yard trimmings is not cheap.
Hope that argument to multifamily and commercial would focus on point of pay me now or pay me later. The
cost of a new landfill must be huge. Everyone will feel it.
Base fee: understand when have utility like water need to increase base fee to cover fixed costs when
conservation increases. In this case the city has three private businesses competing for customers. Haulers
would like more predictable revenue, but what is rationale? Generally lose incentive for reduction when
implement base fee. Agree that important to have commercial and multifamily required to recycle. Will be fall-
out, but not unreasonable. Would like to see compost moved up; it would be very popular and should be
required. It becomes part of daily life. Hope that we do new recycling center. Important to community. The City
talks about sustainability, but our recycling program is not cutting edge. Many other places doing better than we
are.
Where does PSD fall in regard to this? What are they doing? Can we partner with them to engage kids in
recycling?
o Being taught at young age in elementary school.
o And waste for the school as well. Are kids putting food waste in compost?
Fourteen schools have composting for food waste.
PSD has great recycling and more schools want compost.
4.9
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 7
MINUTES: CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Joe Halseth
Kelly McDonnell Bob Mann
Nancy DuTeau Jeremy Sueltenfuss
Harry Edwards
Luke Caldwell
AGENDA ITEM 1—Community Recycling Ordinance
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner, previewed potential amendments to the Pay-As-You-Throw Ordinance, which
are being analyzed and refined for discussion at Council’s October 13 Work Session.
Pay-As-You-Throw started in 1995, and has been updated a few times. This project is to update the ordinance and
provide next steps to meet community goals of Road to Zero Waste. 1999 Council passed 50% diversion rate goal which
has been surpassed. Working toward 75% diversion by 2020. Also have two landfill bans: electronics and cardboard.
Private sector provides hauling service; City creates policy and ordinances, and provides education to community.
Existing incentive programs include Pay-As-You-Throw for single-family and rebates through WRAP program for
businesses and multifamily residential. Pay-As-You-Throw bundles trash and recycling services and trash rate is based on
volume of can subscription. Currently must be 100% price difference between sizes. This creates strong incentive to
recycle. Currently 95% of single-family homes, 68% of multifamily, and 48% of commercial have recycling service. Newer
multifamily are opening with recycling. A barrier for older multifamily is there is not physically enough space in
enclosures for additional bins. Have done a lot of public outreach and consultants have done a lot of research on other
communities and best practices. Short-, mid-, and long-term options staff are considering include allowing a base fee,
adjusting 100% price difference for can sizes, adding food waste and/or yard trimmings collection, getting more uniform
recycling for businesses and multifamily with requirement or Pay-As-You-Throw-style ordinance, collecting food scraps
from large producers, banning recyclables from landfill, etc.
Susie added that multifamily and business owners are experiencing illegal dumping, which has a significant financial
impact. Other communities have addressed this by requiring all households to have trash service. Could be an additional
amendment to the ordinance.
Discussion/Q & A:
Are landfill bans monitored in any way?
o Landfill managers are very careful in monitoring.
o More electronic waste dumping as a result?
Some in rural areas where have nowhere to take it.
Hauler won’t pick up and landfill will not accept.
How often are waste audits happening?
o Varies. Slow flow of self-identification. When do more targeted outreach campaign it picks up. Approx. 1
per month regularly; when ramp up outreach get 2 per week. Have interns who help with program.
4.9
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 8
Why is bundled system only for single-family and why is commercial/multifamily different?
o Single-family homes don’t generate as much volume, so cost is in truck, driver, gas, etc. Alternative in
other communities is to pay extra for recycling. In that case only about 20% of households will recycle.
With Pay-As-You-Throw the more you use, the more you pay. Commercial and multifamily have much
more variability in quantity. Staff has been looking into Pay-As-You-Throw for multifamily and
commercial, but it is more complicated. The volume of material is significant.
o Has been slow getting businesses to recycle.
If business wants to recycle have to pay a separate charge. However, about ½ of what throwing
away is recyclable. If decrease dumpster size and add recycling, still have same overall volume.
Many businesses don’t realize they can reduce trash service to even out cost.
Economics of recyclable material is low right now. When it was higher and the haulers could
make a profit, why didn’t they do more push for recycling?
They make a lot of money from trash as well.
The draft options are ideas, correct? Asking Council whether moving in right direction?
o Staff is determining now how to present to Council. The options are basically the core ideas they intend
to show Council. Will look more at diversion rates related to each option.
What would be an example of phasing?
o For single-family homes phasing in of organics collection, year one could have 15% subscribed, year two
50%, etc. This allows hauler to phase in service, buy carts, increase routes, etc. Gives time to work out
challenges and details as well.
Would like to see more emphasis on waste reduction: less packaging, electronic billing, statements, and delivery
of reading materials. Implement penalties for those businesses that choose not to participate.
o Incentives instead of penalties?
Already exist. Businesses such as banks are giving incentives for e-billing, such as higher interest
rate of return or free checking. Also, some companies are looking at alternative compostable
packaging materials.
o Source reduction is the key. Not sure if can add to this ordinance at this time.
How is this phasing timeline tied to landfill lifetime?
o Haven’t finished numbers, but key findings include if implemented all options would meet 2020
diversion rate goal. Our landfill has 10 years left. Likely that when it closes trash costs will go up
significantly. Pay now or pay later. If less reliant on landfill, reduces impact, as well as delaying closure.
Job creation aspect of recycling and reuse, GHG reductions, etc. Many metrics to analyze.
Is part of education component discussion about increased costs?
o Yes. About ½ of residents live in multifamily housing. Want affordability for everyone. All subsidized
affordable housing in Fort Collins already has recycling, so does not preclude affordability.
Volume and audience of outreach?
o Multifamily groups, business groups, four public meetings. Public meetings were not well attended but
had spikes in questionnaire results close to the meetings. Created a video to generate more activity.
o Summary of feedback?
Open ended intentionally. Questions have included what you like, what to keep or add, etc. A lot
of interest in organics collection as well as having recycling at businesses and apartment
complexes. New survey asks about options.
4.9
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 9
MINUTES: CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015
Location: Community Room, 215 N. Mason Street
Time: 5:30–8:00pm
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Robert Kirkpatrick John Shenot, Chair
Rich Fisher Jim Dennison
Gregory Miller
Tom Griggs
Mark Houdashelt
Vara Vissa (arrived 6:35)
AGENDA ITEM 1: Community Recycling Ordinance
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner, presented information about the process to update the Community Recycling
Ordinance, status of the project, and options under consideration.
Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance began in 1995, which was innovative at the time and has become a best practice to drive
recycling. It has been updated several times since. This project will update and expand the ordinance. In 1999 set a 50%
diversion rate; met and surpassed this goal. Have since implemented electronic waste and cardboard landfill bans. New
goal includes 75% diversion by 2020. At 65% now. Longer term goal of zero waste. Road to Zero Waste was adopted in
2013. Bans are enforced primarily through education. Haulers can refuse loads that clearly have cardboard or
electronics. Complaints are followed up on by staff. Role of City is education and policy, as hauling is done by private
companies. WRAP is program targeted to multifamily and business community that includes incentives and rebates, and
Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance has only applied to single-family residential to date. With Pay-As-You-Throw recycling is
bundled with trash service and pricing is based on volume of trash can subscribed to, with a 100% price increment
between sizes. Multifamily and commercial currently have separate recycling service. 95% of single-family homes, 68%
of multifamily, and 48% of commercial have recycling service. Staff is working with consulting company that has
compiled case studies, has done significant public outreach, is creating recommendations, and will go to Work Session
October 13. Draft options include short-, mid-, and long-term changes. Discussing reducing rate incline to 80%
(offsetting increase in rates due to adding services), adding yard waste service for single-family, bundling recycling with
trash for multifamily and commercial, phasing in organics collection, eventually expanding bans to include all curbside
recyclables and organics, etc. Organics in landfill generate methane, so composting is beneficial to air quality and GHG
reduction. Another idea is to reduce collection of trash to once every two weeks since organics would be collected once
a week. As divert additional waste, can reduce trash service, which also offsets price changes. There are significant GHG
reductions associated with recyclables and organics diversion.
Comments/Q&A
Is City considering dividing city into districts for haulers?
o Not as part of this project and not in near future. Last brought up in 2010.
What is distinction between single-family and multifamily?
o If each unit has its own cart, they are considered single-family homes. If the location has a dumpster
that multiple units share, it is considered multifamily. Different types/sizes of trucks that service
different types of containers. Multifamily and commercial tend to have big metal dumpsters so they are
categorized together.
If multifamily or commercial don’t have recycling, and still have to recycle cardboard, do they have to self-haul?
o Yes. The cardboard ordinance increased recycling rates of multifamily and commercial and drop offs at
the recycling center. However, many may still be putting in trash.
o Commercial is biggest user of cardboard.
4.9
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 10
Explain rate incline changes.
o Ex: If add organics and keep 100% incline, prices go up significantly. If have a lower incline, such as 80%,
keep largest can size price from being prohibitive. Also, data shows 80% incline maintains optimal
diversion.
Would composting be done by the City?
o City does not have a facility. However, A1 Organics has yard waste recycling that was recently permitted
to add food scraps. Also, largest biodigester was just completed outside of Greeley. Processes liquid
waste from Laprino cheese factory and feed lots. Will also accept all food waste. Microbes generate
methane, which is captured and used as natural gas. Waste is turned into compost. Would make sense
to create a transfer station to get organics to a large scale facility. If create ordinance about organics the
private sector will likely provide the facilities.
How are haulers reacting to proposed changes?
o Staff has been in constant communication with haulers. Parts that all support. Mixing together options
that meet all needs. All options are feasible for haulers, but would have a phase-in period. This allows
them to work with customers, purchase and distribute new bins, change routes, etc. Also considered
requiring recycling, but with no set service level. Found in research that commercial tends to low-ball
how much recycling they needed when determining own service.
Fort Collins will make a bigger dent in GHG reduction with source reduction of packaging.
o Pay-As-You-Throw system somewhat drives source reduction. Ex: Paying to throw away grass clippings,
or leave them on the ground? Consumer will likely choose to leave them. Extended producer
responsibility is a way to reduce packaging. This ordinance will not address this, but it is being worked
on elsewhere.
o The GHG figures are annual or projected total over time?
Annual. 2014 baseline.
What is percentage of overall GHG emissions?
If achieved, fairly high percent of estimated reductions. About a quarter to a third of
2020 reduction goal.
o Credit counting: Some do backyard composting. Can that be estimated?
City supports backyard composting. Two benefits from full scale composting: 1. Even with
excellent education program can only get about 5% of single-family to compost at home. 2.
Commercial scale can take more materials than can put in backyard, including meat, oils, food-
soiled paper products, etc.
o What is City doing in waste reduction?
Very difficult. Communities that adopt Pay-As-You-Throw have 6% reduction in trash. When
have to pay per unit of trash, people start to make different choices. Only quantifiable thing in
our current programing.
Have had educational programs including ways to get off junk mail lists.
Plastic bag ordinance would have been source reduction project as well.
2014 community GHG inventory, solid waste was 70K tons.
o Landfill collects methane and flares it?
Two landfills: Larimer County and Ault. Larimer County has methane capture that is flared. Ault
has no methane capture system. City requests destination of materials from haulers. Broader
debate on how much methane actually gets captured in the process.
Lucinda will get more data about what is flared at landfill and algorithm that calculates net
emissions and provide to board.
Is City considering composting versus biodigesters?
o Separated food waste would go to biodigester and yard waste mixed with food waste would go to
composting.
4.9
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Page 11
Gap in organics collection for multifamily. Also, does collection create a reverse incentive for grocery stores to
divert food to biodigester that would otherwise go to Food Bank?
o Will figure out organics collection process in other sectors, then move toward adding multifamily. Single-
family is fairly uniform as are food scraps from large generators. Groceries would have to pay to have
organics collected. Hierarchy is to prevent food waste, feed people, feed animals, then compost.
EPA is pushing to reduce food waste. Has food recovery challenge.
USDA also.
o Multifamily could have pilot projects down the line?
Yes. Certainly.
Will City have cooperative agreement with biodigester for biogas?
o Doubt that. Biodigester financed by Sacramento Municipal Utility District which receives all the credits
for the natural gas.
Alliance of some sort that could be established between cities, or in the state, aimed at directing food to Food
Banks, schools, etc. Worked with Grant Family Farms. A lot of waste in the field. When go to grocery store pick
the very best. In field only pick top produce, then wholesaler, then retailer, so a lot of waste in the chain. Had
gleaning from churches that take to the Food Bank.
What does Caroline need from board?
o Recommendation could come between Work Session and adoption.
o Could happen at either time, depending on how strongly the board wants to give input before Work
Session. Summary of feedback will be part of Work Session materials.
Changes in recycling market?
o Huge shift in business model with dip in recycling prices globally. Haulers are paying to drop off
recyclables now, whereas last year they were being paid for recyclables. Talking about modification to
existing business structure. Haulers are trying to plan for next year, including rates.
o Organics would become revenue stream for haulers?
Expertise is in hauling materials. Need to cover costs and profit percentage from any services
they provide. Details include timing of infrastructure investment, staffing, trucks, containers,
etc.
Multifamily sometimes has large commercial kitchens. Ex: senior housing.
o Cafeterias involved with multifamily could be included with large food waste producers.
Don’t have multifamily organics currently listed because it is trickier. Multifamily we are
discussing are ones that do not have commercial kitchens. Important, but working out system
with other locations first.
o Centralized kitchens can be part of pilot programs.
Doubt there are many multifamily that have unified kitchens.
Fort Collins has many retirement facilities.
May technically fall into category of business. Can make sure definition includes these.
Besides GHG, also about restoring soil. Organics recovery to produce food. Multiple benefits.
Where can compost be used?
o Permitting is very strict. If compostable materials are created and used in one place, the regulations are
not as strict.
Board unanimously passed the following motion: The Air Quality Advisory Board recommends adoption of the
Community Recycling Ordinance with current proposed options and is encouraged by the significant Green House Gas
reductions that would be actualized with its implementation. The board supports inclusion of pilot projects for
recycling of organic materials from multifamily. The board encourages approval of the ordinance as soon as possible,
as it will aid the City in reaching its stated Climate Action Plan goals and organics recovery for food production.
4.9
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Summary of Feedback from Boards and Commissions (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
ATTACHMENT 10 4.10
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Memorandum of Support from ASCSU (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
1
Community Recycling Ordinance
Caroline Mitchell
10-13-15
ATTACHMENT 11
4.11
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Questions for Council
Does Council have direction regarding options and timeline for
1) Updating the price differential for trash at single-family
homes?
2) Recycling at multi-family complexes and businesses?
3) Organics collection options for single-family homes
and grocers / large restaurants?
4.11
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
2014 Recycling and
Composting in Fort Collins
3
Recycling
Composting
Trash
65% Diversion
4.11
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Recycling and Composting with Full
Community Recycling Ordinance Implementation
Recycled
Composed
Landfilled
80% Diversion
4
4.11
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Alignment of Project
5
Plan Fort Collins: Principles ENV 13, 14, 15, 17
Strategic Plan: 4.6, 4.11: Demonstrate progress toward achieving zero waste within
the community and the City organization
BFO metrics: ENV 7, 10, 12
City Council-Adopted Goals: zero waste by 2030
Community Recycling Ordinance project
Why recycling?
• Conserve natural resources, prevent pollution
• Greenhouse gas reductions from recycling or composting
• Jobs creation, local economic growth
• Extend life of landfill
• Larimer County Landfill has 10 year life expectancy
• Supports Council-adopted goals
• Working toward zero waste goal
• Climate Action Plan goals
6
4.11
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Timeline of recycling in Fort Collins
7
Pay-As-You
Throw (PAYT)
starts
1995
PAYT updates
2004 2007 2013 2015
electronics
landfill ban
2009
cardboard
landfill ban
1999
Community
Recycling
Ordinance
Road to Zero
Waste plan
goal: 50%
diversion
by 2010
Goal: 75%
diversion by 2020
4.11
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
8
1) Trash and recycling service and rates are bundled
• Recycling is no additional charge
2) Trash pricing based on volume of trash can subscription
$30
*Rates are for example.
Actual rates set by haulers.
Current Pay-As-You-Throw Requirements
$45
$15
4.11
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
9
Commercial / Multi-Family Trash System
Same as single-family homes:
• Volume-based pricing for trash
• Bill based on size of dumpster,
service frequency
Different than single-family homes:
• Recycling is separate fee,
NOT bundled
4.11
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
10
Results of programs
95%
68%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Single Family Homes Multi-Family
Complexes
Commercial
2014 Recycling Subscription Rate, Fort Collins
(% of customers subscribed to recycling service)
4.11
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
11
Increased
Recycling or
Composting
Greenhouse Gas
Impact
Estimated Cost Impact
1a) 80% price
difference between
trash can sizes
(recommended option 1a)
No change from
current system
No change from
current system
Cost savings for 64- and 96-gallon
customers. Helps to reduce
impacts to these customers from
higher rates for additional
services.
1b) 50% price
difference between
trash can sizes
(alternative option 1b)
Less diversion than
current system
Potential
increase
More significant cost savings for
64- and 96-gallon customers.
Helps to reduce impacts to these
customers from higher rates for
additional services.
Single-Family Options
4.11
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
12
Increased Recycling or
Composting
Greenhouse Gas
Impact
Estimated Cost
2a) Bundling trash &
recycling service
(recommended option)
15,000 tons
3.5% diversion rate increase
Reduces 47,645
tons CO2
equivalent
Additional
33% to 50% cost /
customer
(for those not already
recycling)
2b) Requiring recycling
service
(alternative option)
2,281 tons
0.6% diversion rate increase
Reduces 7,188
tons CO2
equivalent
Additional
5-30% cost / customer
($20-$30/customer)
(for those not already
recycling)
Multi-family & Commercial Options
4.11
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
13
Increased Recycling or
Composting
Greenhouse Gas
Impact
Estimated Cost
3) Require haulers to provide
optional yard trimmings
collection
from all single-family homes
(2016)
413 tons
0.1% diversion rate
increase
minor $13-15 / subscriber
(optional)
4) Collect all-organics from all
single-family homes (bundled)
(2017 or 2018)
23,723 tons
5.4% diversion rate
increase
Reduces 10,080
tons CO2
equivalent
$8 / household
5) Require food scraps
subscription from grocers &
large restaurants
(2017 or 2018)
24,976 tons
6% diversion rate increase
Reduces 24,889
tons CO2
equivalent
Variable
Recommended Organics Programs
4.11
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Creation of the
Community Recycling Ordinance
• 4 public meetings
• Presentations to 5 City Boards
& Commissions
• Regular meetings with trash
haulers
• Presentations to 14
Stakeholder & Community
Groups
• Advisory board with 20 diverse
members
14
4.11
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
15
single-family Homes Multi-Family Units Businesses
Short term:
Adjust Pay-As-
You-Throw
(2016-2017)
• 80% price difference between
sizes of trash carts*
• All haulers offer option of weekly
yard trimmings collection (for
separate charge)
Bundle recycling in
with trash service
Bundle recycling in with
trash service
Medium term:
Collect organics
(2017 – 2018)
Phase in collection of organics
(bundled with trash service)
Require collection of food
scraps from grocers,
large restaurants
Recommended Options for Community Recycling Ordinance
4.11
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
16
Alternative Options for Community Recycling Ordinance
single-family Homes Multi-Family Units Businesses
Short term:
Adjust Pay-As-
You-Throw
(2016-2017)
50% price difference between
sizes of trash carts*
Require recycling service
• Separate fee on bill
• Hauler / customer
determine amount of
recycling
Require recycling service
• Separate fee on bill
• Hauler / customer
determine amount of
recycling
Longer term:
Ban materials from
landfill disposal
(2019 – 2020)
• Landfill ban on all curbside
recyclables
• Landfill ban on all organics
• Every other week trash
collection
Landfill ban on all curbside
recyclables
• Landfill ban on all
curbside recyclables
• Landfill ban on all
organics
4.11
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Current Recycling Programs in Fort Collins
Education Incentive Mandate
single-family
residential
General recycling education Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
Businesses
General recycling education
Free waste audit,
educational materials (WRAP)
In-person outreach campaign
(WRAP)
Rebate for starting recycling
(up to $500) (WRAP)
Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
Apartments
and condos
General recycling education
Free waste audit,
educational materials (WRAP)
Rebate for starting recycling
(up to $500) (WRAP)
Landfill ban on cardboard and electronics
4.11
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Community Recycling Center and Other Zero Waste Initiatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present information about four approaches to expanding citizens’ opportunities to
divert more waste materials from landfill disposal, in the interests of implementing “Road to Zero Waste”
strategies that will help the community reach adopted Zero Waste goals. The four approaches are:
1. Build a complete Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials” as previously described
at the June 23, 2015 work session.
2. Build a modified CRC “lite” at the same previously identified site (Timberline/East Prospect) that:
a. does not accept green-waste/wood
3. Build a modified CRC “lite” at the same site that:
a. does not accept green-waste/wood and
b. is only open two days per week (not five)
4. Redirect efforts to a bundle of other strategies that support progress toward Zero Waste goals.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have guidance on which of the four options to select?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Road to Zero Waste Plan in 2013 led to adoption of new goals for the community to reach: 75% waste
diversion by 2020; then 90% by 2025; a goal of reducing the amount of waste generated per person to 2.8
pounds/day by 2025; and ultimately zero waste by 2030. Strategies to reach these goals that were identified
included development of an expanded public collection site (beyond what is currently offered at the City’s
Rivendell Recycling Center); more focus on the types of materials that are hard to recycle locally; and increasing
the community’s capability for sorting/recycling glass, among other ideas.
Paying for a new, expanded recycling center has been discussed in depth by the Council, and money is allocated
that would provide complete funding for any of the four approaches that are listed above, including the full CRC
facility or a modified version of the CRC, or, any/all of the new projects that are featured in a multi-pronged
approach that would not entail constructing a facility.
Substantial work was done for preparing to build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect; however, due in part to
recent changes in international recycling markets, a deep analysis of the operational costs showed the City would
need to subsidize a bricks-and-mortar facility with a yearly budget of as much as $380,000. The “full CRC” has
been designed to comprehensively meet citizens’ needs, with five days of operations/week and a list of materials
that included, among other things, green-waste and wood. With that in mind, Council recently directed staff to
include an offer for $380,000 in the mid-term Budgeting for Outcomes cycle for possible adoption as part of the
2016 budget.
At Council’s direction, the CRC model was also evaluated to determine how much less it would cost to operate
under several modified scenarios, either by thereby lowering costs for site personnel by reducing hours of
5
Packet Pg. 287
October 13, 2015 Page 2
operation, and/or by removing green-waste/wood from the list of materials that would be accepted for recycling at
the CRC (this type of material has high handling and disposal costs).
CRC “lite” Version 1 would build the site as originally designed but no green-waste or wood would be accepted.
Costs for this facility’s annual operations and maintenance would be $155,000.
CRC “lite” Version 2 would also build the original facility, but in addition to removing green-waste and wood, the
hours of operation would be reduced from five days per week to two days per week. The financial analysis shows
that the City would need to budget $62,000 per year to run a CRC “lite” Version 2.
Finally, also at Council’s request, a “bundle” of various other projects were modeled for their costs and for their
waste-diversion impacts, including:
1. Hard-to-recycle-materials collection events held for one day at non-permanent locations
2. Expand program for collecting glass separately from other recyclables
3. Additional collection events for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) materials
4. “Rivendell” Recycling Center #2; replicate the facility at a second location
5. Increased education and outreach, plus partnerships to expand Zero Waste opportunities
Details of Three CRC Versions
City’s Cost Staffing Metrics* $/ton 30-yr
**
amortization
CRC “full” (original) - Open five days per week
1. For-fee area open five
days/week 2. Original
complete list of hard-to-
recycle materials - Green-
waste and wood accepted 3.
“Rivendell” area open seven
days/week during daylight
hours
$1.7 M capital
$380,000/yr
O&M if six
days/week and
100 visits/day
$203,000/yr if
five days/week
and 40 visits/day
No new City
staff 2-3
vendor
employees
on-site
Range of 1,500 to
3,200 tons /yr waste
diverted from landfills
in year 1 Year 5 =
6,735 tons
$138 to
$172/ton
CRC “lite” Version 1 - Open five days per week
1. Excludes green-
waste/wood from list of hard-
to-recycle materials 2.
“Rivendell” area open seven
days/week during daylight
hours
$1.7 M capital
$155-175,000/yr
O&M
No new City
staff 2
October 13, 2015 Page 3
Details of “Bundled” New Initiatives to Support Progress at Meeting Zero Waste Goals
City’s Cost Staffing Metrics* $/ton; 30-yr
amortization
Bundle of New Projects to Support Progress Toward Zero Waste Goal General Descriptions: Five
different projects, independent of one another, that help reach community goals for waste diversion and
recycling.
Bundled Project 1.1: Host Three (3) Hard-to-recycle-materials collection events annually
General description: Follows model of City of Longmont’s one-day events held three times/year to collect
electronic waste, books, durable plastics, fires extinguishers, Styrofoam, porcelain, textiles. Additional
note: the outcome of this project is “embedded” in CRC model
1. Use parking lots or rented
space for events 2. Collect
scrap metal, batteries, latex
paint, Styrofoam, and
electronic waste (largest
volumes will be from e-
waste) 3. Would not include
green-waste/wood Partner
with local recyclers, in
addition to contracting
services for a hauling vendor
capable of marketing
materials Business model:
Private contractor hired to
manage materials and run
events. City augments
staffing, sets up, publicizes.
$22,000/yr (3
events)
.50 FTE
new City
staff year 1
.25 FTE in
subsequent
years
Vendor
hires event
workers
35 tons year waste
diverted (mostly
electronics) 300-350
users per collection
event
$629/ton
Bundled Project 1.2: Separated glass recycling - bins throughout community General
Description: Expand program for collecting glass separately from other recyclables to enhance dollar
values of materials and optimize amount of glass recovered; some elements of this project are already
beginning to be implemented as a pilot. Additional note: the outcome of this project is “embedded” in
CRC model
1. Private sector creates
network of glass-only
collection bins around Fort
Collins. 2. Less glass in
curbside recycling makes
collection more efficient,
saves haulers money,
optimizes glass recycled.
Build central collection
bunker where glass is
October 13, 2015 Page 4
City’s Cost Staffing Metrics* $/ton; 30-yr
amortization
1. Establish two additional
community-wide events for
HHW materials. 2. Increases
events to four per year.
Contract with vendor to
provide collection services.
Business model:
Professional contractor
manages HHW. City
provides some staff levels at
events, set-up, and publicity.
$140,000/yr
additional for
HHW service
contractor
$22,500 City
staff year 1;
$11,250 in
subsequent
years
.5 FTE new
City staff
year 1 .25
FTE
subsequent
years
60 tons/yr* 880 users
per collection event
$2,334/ton
after year 1
* Costs for handling and disposing of the acutely toxic (highly regulated) materials that are collected at
HHW events are unavoidably high.
Bundled Project 1.4: “Rivendell #2” General Description: Create a second recycling center that
creates greater convenience for citizens. Additional note: the outcome of this project is not
“embedded” in CRC model
1. Create replica (second) of
Rivendell Recycling Center
at a new location 2. New site
geographically located for
convenience to citizens, i.e.,
fewer miles of travel for users
who live farther away from
the current site Business
model: City runs recycling
site; hires hauler to deliver
commodities to market;
retains share of price
obtained if/when
commodities have value.
Minimum*
$105,000 capital
costs
(equipment only)
$50,000/yr O&M
$11,500/yr City
staff
.25 FTE
October 13, 2015 Page 5
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approving construction of the CRC Version 2, whereby green-waste is not accepted in the
interests of prudent fiscal management. We think it offers significant social benefits to the community, supports
the culture of recycling and waste diversion in Fort Collins that is critical to achieving progress on zero waste
goals and the Climate Action Plan Framework, and preserves the site for the unique opportunities it presents for
future development of small scale waste-to-energy or expanded resource recovery.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community Recycling Center site map (PDF)
2. Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
3. Work Session Summary, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 291
Community Recycling Center
Fort Collins, CO
Original Concept Rendering and Site Map
ATTACHMENT 1
5.1
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Community Recycling Center site map (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero
5.1
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Community Recycling Center site map (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero
DATE:
STAFF:
June 23, 2015
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Community Recycling Center Operational Costs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present information about the estimated range of ongoing operational costs of the
new Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials” and to discuss options going forward. A
public collection site for hard-to-recycle-materials is one of the City's strategies for achieving its goal of Zero
Waste. Funding has been secured to construct the site and significant progress has been made in preparing to
build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect.
In 2015, staff and the potential site operator developed a Profit & Loss (P&L) analysis that applies a set of key
assumptions (e.g., number of visits, volume of material collected) and forecasts costs to run the facility. Based on
these assumptions, the net annual operating expenses could be in the range of $200-$300K per year. It was
originally envisioned that a private contractor would be able to operate the site and cover operational expenses by
charging a small gate fee. However, the market for recyclable commodities has changed recently. It is likely that
a small gate fee will not cover all the operational expenses, and City support will be needed to provide this
innovative service to the community.
Staff will seek guidance from Council about its interest in: (A) supporting on-going operational costs,( B) scaling
back the site construction to move existing recycling center only and thereby reduce financial risk, but preserve
future options, or( C) placing the project on hold or terminating it.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have guidance on the Community Recycling Center (CRC), considering unanticipated, ongoing
operating costs?
2. What direction does Council have regarding the three options identified?
A. Support a mid-cycle BFO proposal that would identify ongoing funding, starting in 2016, for operating the
new Community Recycling Center
B. Undertake only as much development on the new CRC site necessary to move the existing recycling
center to the City-owned location, thereby postponing the "hard-to-recycle-materials" area of the CRC
C. Place the project on hold or terminate work on building a new CRC.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A public collection site for hard-to-recycle-materials is one of the City's strategies for achieving its goal of Zero
Waste and significant progress has been made in preparing to build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect. The
plan includes two areas where separate activities will occur:
On the east side nearest Timberline Road, the relocated "Rivendell" Recycling Center will operate as
usual (for free, seven days/week during daylight hours, unstaffed). This element of the CRC project has
its own, separate funding for O&M ($66,000 annually, as approved in the 2014 BFO process). The
ATTACHMENT 2
5.2
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
June 23, 2015 Page 2
Rivendell Recycling center is currently located adjacent to Rivendell School, and accepts “traditional”
recyclables such as paper, cardboard, bottles and cans etc.
Farther back on the property, a completely new facility will operate (open during regular business hours,
staffed, visitors charged a gate fee), which will accept a variety of new materials for recycling, including
several construction and demolition (C&D) wastes, paint and other low-toxicity household wastes, and
old/obsolete electronic equipment.
Permits have been obtained and Connell Resources is prepared to break ground on the 5-acre Timberline
property, which is owned by the City, as soon as notified to proceed. Signage has been planned to notify patrons
of the current Rivendell Recycling Center about the upcoming facility. (Attachment 1)
An original budget of $750,000 for the CRC was approved in 2013. Financial setbacks slowed the project in
2014, when capital construction costs were found to be higher than estimated, bringing the total cost estimate up
to $1.7M. In 2014, Council approved an additional $1.0M for construction in 2015.
Resuming work in December to develop the new facility, staff in ESD and Finance began working in earnest with
the private sector vendor selected through the 2014 RFP process to be the site operator (Waste-Not Recycling).
Several conclusions were reached through this collaborative process. One was the suggestion to increase the
number of vendor employees, from one person to two full-time people, in the interests of providing sufficient
customer service. As a result, expenses to pay site attendants, which represent a significant part of the O&M
costs, were effectively doubled.
Secondly, the City team created a detailed P&L spreadsheet for the CRC's income stream (gate fees and rebates
from saleable commodities) and expenses, including the vendor's overhead and freight/trucking costs. Modeled
estimations for a range of net operational costs were identified to be between $200,000 and $300,000. A worst-
case-scenario could result in as much as $400,000 per year in the unlikely event of several worst case variables
occurring simultaneously. Negotiations with the vendor have not yet concluded, and staff feels there are several
potential operational cost reductions that can be implemented.
The P&L modeling was undertaken to reduce the City's financial risks, to the extent possible, that come with
innovations such as a drop-off center for hard-to-recycle materials. Unfortunately, few examples exist for Fort
Collins to use as comparable models; although some communities in the US have built this type of facility,
information was hard to obtain about how they finance the O&M costs. A non-profit organization, Ecocycle,
operates a Center for Hard-to-Recycle-Materials (called "CHaRM") in Boulder. Differences in which materials are
accepted vary significantly, but the project does clearly demonstrate how usage grows (from 15 trips/day in 2002
to 115 trips/day in 2013) and how it also gives Boulder the ability to expand the types of materials accepted
locally, as viable markets for recycling emerge. The CHaRM started off accepting two materials, and now collects
14 materials due to additional markets and relationships built with local small-scale manufacturers.)
The unknowns/inherent risks of running a CRC that will influence net operational costs include:
Difficult to estimate the number of customers who will use the site, especially at first while people learn
about it
Impossible to accurately estimate how much volume of material people will bring with each visit
Gate fees modeled at $5/visit (excludes those dropping off paint) and proposed volume-based fees for
green waste and wood do not offset expenses
Prices from sales of recyclable commodities cannot be reliably predicted to offset expenses because of
market volatility
Currently commodities are at all-time lows; while income from sales of materials such as scrap metal are
anticipated to rise, it is much lower than estimated just one year ago
If large amounts of low-value material (e.g., green waste and wood waste) are received at the CRC, it
skews operational expenses because of these materials' higher handling/disposal costs, compared to
commodities that have value (e.g. scrap metal, cardboard.)
Another discussion item that emerged during Q1 of 2015 is the proposal to host the City's biannual Household
Hazardous Waste collection events at the CRC. Staffed by Utilities, these events have been held since their
5.2
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
June 23, 2015 Page 3
inception in 2009 at a parking lot on the campus of Colorado State University (Lake and College). Due to CSU's
development plans, the Lake Street parking lot is no longer available for the City to use and a new location needs
to be found. In collaboration with the Environmental Services Department, Utilities has agreed that the Timberline
CRC would be a good venue for holding the HHW collection days, once the new facility is open.
Summary of Benefits
Based on staff’s 13 years of experience running the Rivendell Recycling Center, it is anticipated the CRC will be
highly used and appreciated, just as Rivendell has been very popular, an asset in which many citizens seem to
take great pride of ownership. There are a number of strikingly similar circumstances between development of
Rivendell in 2001 and today's efforts to build an expanded recycling center.
The Rivendell facility was built about 15 years after recycling was introduced to the Fort Collins community in the
mid-to-late 1980s. A goal of 50% waste diversion had just been adopted in 1999, and the public's growing
interest and demand required the City to respond to citizen expectations for greater opportunities to recycle. Now,
with passage of another 13 years, the City is gearing up to respond to even higher expectations for recycling
more types of materials, and for meeting new goals aimed at sending even less waste to landfills.
In 2002, the City had little idea of how much growth in usage (currently 400 visits on average daily) and tonnage
(1,500 tons/year) would occur at Rivendell. At the CRC, advanced recycling opportunities that are in high demand
by citizens will be accessible and actionable, providing more avenues to achieving Zero Waste goals and
implementing the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Initially, the CRC may experience low levels of usage, but from
staff’s experience seeing how much citizens of Fort Collins respond to expanded opportunities to recycle, it is
anticipated the number of visits would likely grow rapidly, to as many as 100 per day.
In drawing further comparison, the Rivendell Recycling Center costs approximately $66,000/year to operate
(which includes $16,500 lease payments to the school). With 1,500 tons/year now being conservatively modeled
for the CRC, the amount of material recycled at the CRC, at minimum, will be equal to the amount recycled at
Rivendell.
The CRC will support goals adopted in the 2013 Road to Zero Waste, not only by diverting a conservatively
estimated 1,500 tons/ year of new material from landfill disposal, but by providing positive experiences for citizens
that motivate them to take even further action to reduce waste. The amount of additional greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) that will be avoided, 2,350 tons estimated in the first year, will help support goals adopted for
the 2014 CAP.
The CRC is one of the primary tactics identified in the 2015 CAP Framework Plan, as a way to recycle more
materials (thereby reducing GHG emissions from energy required to manufacture new products and avoiding
emissions caused during mineral resources extraction), help people gain confidence in their ability to undertaken
even greater sustainability practices in their daily lives, and divert waste from being landfilled (a disposal method
that generates methane emissions, a significant source of GHG).
The CRC will give citizens more ability to appropriately manage the types of household hazardous waste (HHW)
that are generated at the residential level. On a year-round basis, four materials (antifreeze, batteries, oil, and
paint, or ABOP for short) can be brought to the recycling center. On two occasions each year, the CRC would
function as the host site for residents to bring all types of residential HHW during the Utility's popular HHW
collection days (the May 30 event this year broke previous years' attendance records, with well over 1,000 visits).
The CRC's year-round activities to collect ABOP would reduce costs for the biannual HHW round-ups, and
therefore the Utility Department foresees having $25,000 available annually to help support the recycling center's
operations and maintenance costs.
Staff suggests that providing annual funding for operating the CRC will provide social benefits to the community,
support the culture of recycling that is critical to achieving progress on zero waste goals and the Climate Action
Plan Framework, and preserve the site for the unique opportunities it presents for future development of small
scale waste-to-energy or expanded resource recovery. If directed, staff is prepared to develop a budget "offer" to
introduce into the process for making mid-cycle BFO revisions. To ensure a budget is adopted that is sufficient to
5.2
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
June 23, 2015 Page 4
address the uncertainties inherent in new and "uncharted" initiatives, staff recommends an initial annual budget of
$300,000 to cover anticipated net operating expenses.
To control costs, staff submits the following ideas for consideration:
Limit the amount of green/wood waste accepted at the CRC
o establish policy of charging an amount (i.e., $7.00 per cubic yard fee when customers bring
green/wood waste (it is important to note that the public already has the option of using one of the
two local businesses that accept woody/organic materials for less than $7.00 per yard)
o these are the materials for which management/dispose costs are highest
o disallow use by commercial landscapers or arborists
Establish a policy that limits the volume of materials that are more costly to process (green waste and
yard waste).
o For example, customers could be limited to 2 cubic yards of these commodities.
o until it is established how much usage the CRC can absorb, setting limits for customers will help
prevent being overwhelmed by volumes
Expenses to operate the CRC facility will receive close scrutiny by staff in partnership with the contractor, Waste-
Not Recycling. Starting at the outset, joint monthly financial meetings will be held to enable fast adaptation for
most efficiently managing the site. As a highly experienced company with a long track record as a successful
recycling business, Waste-Not will be committed to helping find ways to reduce costs such as freight charges, and
to improve commodity values (e.g., by installing a baler for cardboard), as well as developing opportunities to
expand the list of materials that people can bring to the CRC as recycling markets open up for them.
Pros and Cons of Options Identified by Staff
A. Mid-cycle BFO proposal that would identify ongoing funding, starting in 2016, for operating the new
Community Recycling Center
May provide sufficient degree of assurance to proceed with construction and to open the CRC now, if it is
known that Council's approval is likely to be given in November for costs of O&M in 2016
Enables staff to spend $68,000 of state grant money by deadline of June 30 for purchase of CRC
equipment (collection bins) if City is confident that construction of the site will proceed as described in the
grant application
Meets the aspirations and desires of the community and helps address adopted City goals
Provides greatest return on the City's investment of time and resources already made, to date, in
developing and planning the project (approximately $175,000, including $70,000 on engineering costs,
$41,000 on project manager salary, and $28,000 for tree-moving)
Provides host site for City's highly successful collection events for household hazardous waste, in
collaboration with the Utilities Department
Annual O&M costs defrayed by $25,000 from HHW collection events budget
Opens up options for contracted operator to host other discretionary, special-material collection events,
e.g., block Styrofoam, on occasional basis
Leaves opportunities open for developing future phases of CRC on west-most portion of site, e.g., pilot
project to demonstrate waste-to-energy technology such as bio-digester system that could potentially fuel
a nearby recreational facility.
Location provides potential for industrial symbiotic system, whereby businesses in adjacent industrial park
or artisan village could use material collected at CRC to make products
B. Build the site to a level of construction that allows staff to proceed with moving the "Rivendell"
Recycling Center to the City's property on Timberline Road
Altered plan would complete all preliminary work except paving for the west portion, allowing Center for
Hard-to-Recycle-Materials to be built at later date
5.2
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
June 23, 2015 Page 5
Allows the City to initiate the CRC project at a known level of O&M that is already funded, the "Rivendell"
activities were included in the 2014-15 budget
Saves the City $16,500 in annual payments to the Rivendell School from which property is leased
Encourages the public to become acquainted with location of new City drop-off site, therefore, in the long
run an expanded drop-off site is more familiar for people to use
Activates project to construct the site using:
o fully engineered plans
o permits that are already obtained
o funding already in-hand to pay for earth-moving, electrical installation, drainage, and paving work
Postpones expenditure of roughly $150,000 of the budget for doing the paving work
Allows time to further evaluate costs and funding mechanism to pay O&M for the "hard-to-recycle-
materials" portion of the CRC in future BFO processes
Relatively undeveloped area on west side of site could function as space for holding special-material
collection (such as Styrofoam etc.) events conducted by contracted operator.
C. Place the CRC project on hold, or terminate it
Prevents staff from expending more time working on the CRC
Helps City avoid risks associated with change and innovation
Leaves implementation of this important new measure to reach Zero Waste goals and Climate Action
Plan goals unfulfilled
Incurs disappointment among members of the public who have been looking forward to completion of
the CRC
Represents lost investment of staff time and other resources that have been expended during 2013-15
Guidance from City Council will determine next steps for the CRC.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Banner for Rivendell Recycle Center (PDF)
2. Staff memo, May 1, 2015 (PDF)
3. Staff memo re: Household hazardous waste collection events at CRC, April 23, 2015 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
5.2
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Recycling Center Agenda Item Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
ATTACHMENT 3
5.3
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Work Session Summary, June 23, 2015 (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Initiatives)
1
Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste Options
Lucinda Smith and Susie Gordon
10-13-15
ATTACHMENT 4
5.4
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Question for Council
Does Council have guidance on which of four options to select?
1. Complete Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials”
2. CRC “lite” that does not accept green-waste/wood (open 5 days/week)
3. CRC “lite” that does not accept green-waste/wood (open 2 days/week)
4. Redirect efforts to a bundle of other strategies that support Zero Waste goals
5.4
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Projects’ Support of Council Policy
• Resource conservation and waste prevention
• Greenhouse gas reductions from recycling
• Extends life of landfills
• Larimer County Landfill has 10 year life expectancy
• Supports Council-adopted goals
• Working toward zero waste goal
• Climate Action Plan goals
3
5.4
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Chronology of Recycling Collection Projects
4
Electronic
Waste Annual
Collection
Events
2000-04
Open Rivendell
Recycling
Center
2002 2013 2015
electronics
landfill ban
2009
cardboard
landfill ban
2012 Feasibility Study for
Expanded Recycling Center;
followed by Council Review,
BFO Offer, project design,
2015 ongoing discussions
1999 goal:
50% waste
diversion
by 2010
Goal: 75%
diversion by 2020
2007
Start
biannual
collection
events for
HHW
2012
5.4
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Three Variations for New Recycling Center
City’s costs Metrics Cost/ton; 30-yr amortization
i.e., return on investment
Other
CRC
“full”
$1.7 M capital
$380,000/yr O&M if
100 visits/day
$203,000/yr if 40
visits/day
1,500 to 3,200 tons /yr
waste diverted from
landfills in year 1
Year 5 = 6,700 tons
$138 to $172/ton
Open 7 days/week in no-fee
“Rivendell” area
• For 5 days/week, new
area takes scrap metal,
aggregate, ABOP, E-
waste, green-waste, &
wood, for $5 fee
CRC
“lite” V1
$1.7 M capital
$155,000/yr (O&M)
1,100 tons/yr waste
diverted from landfills
Year 5 = 1,200 tons
$194/ton
• Same as “full” CRC
except no green-waste
or wood
CRC “lite”
V2
$1.7 M capital
$62,000/yr O&M
1,000 tons/yr waste
diverted
Year 5 = 1,000 tons
$124/ton
• Same as above except
new area limited to 2
days/week
5.4
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Bundle of Alternative Zero-Waste Projects
City’s costs Metrics Cost/ton; 30-yr amortization
i.e., return on investment
Other
Collection
events for
new items
$22,000/yr (3
events)
35 tons year waste
diverted (mostly
electronics)
$629/ton
Accept scrap metal,
batteries, latex paint,
Styrofoam, e-waste
Glass
collection
$20,000 capital
(one-time costs for
bunker) + $5,000/yr
O&M
300 tons/yr glass
$19/ton
Creates more glass-only
collection sites
HHW
collection
$151,250/yr 60 tons/yr
Various household
hazardous wastes
$2,334/ton
Creates two more HHW events
per year
5.4
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Alternative Zero-Waste Projects, continued
City’s costs Metrics Cost/ton; 30-yr amortization
i.e., return on investment
Other
Build
second
“Rivendell”
> $105,000
capital costs (for
equipment only)
$61,500 yr O&M
750 tons/yr
$87/ton
Creates second City drop-
off site to replicate Rivendell
Recycling Center that
provides convenience to
citizens who live farther
away from the current site
Education
and
partnerships
Range of $50-
100,000/year
250 tons/yr (estimate
only) $390/ton
(estimate only)
Promote free concrete
recycling at Crushing
facility; promote more
backyard composting;
regional planning and other
partnerships that create
economic opportunities
5.4
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
One-page Comparison of Options
Annual O&M
costs
Capital
Costs
Tons/year Cost/ton
CRC “full” $380,000 or
$203,000
$1.7 M 1,500 to 3,200
(6,700 Year 5)
$138 to $172
CRC “lite” V1 $155,000 $1.7 M 1,100 waste
(1,200 Year 5)
$194
CRC “lite” V2 $62,000 $1.7 M 1,000
(1,000 Year 5)
$124
Events to collect new items $22,000 NA 35 $629
Glass collection $5,000 $20,000 300 $19
HHW collection $151,250 NA 60 $2,334
Second “Rivendell” $61,500 > $105,00 750 $87
Education, partnerships $50-100,000 NA 250 (estimate only) $390
8
5.4
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
Question for Council
Does Council have guidance on which of four options to select?
1. Complete Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials”
2. CRC “lite” that does not accept green-waste/wood (open 5 days/week)
3. CRC “lite” that does not accept green-waste/wood (open 2 days/week)
4. Redirect efforts to a bundle of other strategies that support Zero Waste goals
5.4
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
CRC Location
10
5.4
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
11
North
CRC
Original Concept Rendering
….
Timberline
Road
Electric
Substation
5.4
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3630 : Community Recycling Center & Other Zero Waste
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Jerry Schiager, Police Deputy Chief
John Hutto, Police Chief
Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Update on Community Policing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide City Council with a summary of current community policing programs and
activities. Police Services would also like to receive direction from Council regarding a future Campus West
substation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are there any questions about the community policing activities of FCPS?
2. Would Council like to see an offer in the 2017-2018 budget for a community policing substation with the
associated staffing for the Campus West area?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has demonstrated leadership in community policing for decades. It is an
integral part of our organizational philosophy. Community Policing is defined by the U.S. Department of Justice
as:
“a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships
and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to
public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.”
There are three key components of Community Policing: Organizational Transformation, Community Partnerships
and Problem Solving. A department philosophy that supports and encourages all officers to engage with citizens
and take ownership in solving community problems is essential to be successful.
FCPS also utilizes several specialized units that are generally not subject to routine call response so they have
time to focus on particular areas or segments of the community. Some of these specialized units are the School
Resource Officers, the Neighborhood Enforcement Team, and the District One downtown teams.
Community partnerships are essential to provide a connection to various groups of people within our city and
opportunities to collaborate to solve common problems. Police Services enjoys very strong community
partnerships including Poudre School District, Colorado State University, business associations and dozens of
organizations and agencies in our city. Some of Police Services’ most visible partnership successes are in the
town-gown relations with CSU. Police Services is contacted regularly by other college towns for information on
these programs. We are very fortunate to have a university that is committed to improving the quality of life
throughout the city.
For several years there has been a discussion about adding a community policing substation in the Campus West
area. This area is over-represented in nuisance issues such as noise and party complaints, disturbances and
minor property crime. It is a densely populated area with a healthy mix of student-aged people and long term
residents. A growing student population and increasing high-density housing will continue to drive the work load in
this area. In addition, the relocation of the police building to the east side of the city also created a desire for
6
Packet Pg. 311
October 13, 2015 Page 2
police presence on the west side of the city. A substation providing a dedicated community policing team and a
location for community access would address some of these issues. Preliminary discussions with Neighborhood
Services and Colorado State University have identified an interest in creating a facility with several different
entities sharing space and information.
Fort Collins Police Services has a rich history in community policing and is poised to grow with the city in the
coming years. The ongoing challenges in the Campus West area, along with anticipated annexations and growth,
will create the need for additional officers and new strategies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Community Policing Defined (PDF)
2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 312
Community Policing
Defined
ATTACHMENT 1
6.
Packet Pg.
1
The Primary Elements of Community Policing
Nonprof its / Service Providers
Using the Crime Triangle
6.
Packet Pg.
2
1
Community Policing Defined
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support
the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address
the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder,
and fear of crime.
Community policing
comprises three
key components:
Community Partnerships
Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the
individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems and
increase trust in police
Organizational Transformation
The alignment of organizational management, structure, personnel, and
information systems to support community partnerships and proactive
problem solving
Problem Solving
The process of engaging in the proactive and
systematic examination of identified problems
to develop and evaluate
effective responses
6.
Packet Pg.
3
2
Community
Partnerships
Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the
individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems
and increase trust in police
Community policing, recognizing that police rarely can solve public
safety problems alone, encourages interactive partnerships with relevant
stakeholders. The range of potential partners is large, and these partnerships
can be used to accomplish the two interrelated goals of developing solutions
to problems through collaborative problem solving and improving public trust.
The public should play a role in prioritizing and addressing public
safety problems.
Other Government Agencies
Law enforcement organizations can partner with a number of other
government agencies to identify community concerns and offer alternative
solutions. Examples of agencies include legislative bodies, prosecutors,
probation and parole, public works departments, neighboring law enforcement
agencies, health and human services, child support services, ordinance
enforcement, and schools.
6.
Packet Pg.
4
3
Community Policing Defined
Community Members/Groups
Individuals who live, work, or otherwise have an interest in the community—
volunteers, activists, formal and informal community leaders, residents,
visitors and tourists, and commuters—are a valuable resource for identifying
community concerns. These factions of the community can be engaged in
achieving specific goals at town hall meetings, neighborhood association
meetings, decentralized offices/storefronts in the community, and team beat
assignments.
Nonprofits / Service Providers
Advocacy and community-based organizations that provide services to the
community and advocate on its behalf can be powerful partners. These groups
often work with or are composed of individuals who share common interests
and can include such entities as victims groups, service clubs, support groups,
issue groups, advocacy groups, community development corporations, and the
faith community.
Private Businesses
For-profit businesses also have a great stake in the health of the community
and can be key partners because they often bring considerable resources
to bear in addressing problems of mutual concern. Businesses can help
identify problems and provide resources for responses, often including their
own security technology and community outreach. The local chamber of
commerce and visitor centers can also assist in disseminating information
about police and business partnerships and initiatives, and crime prevention
practices.
Media
The media represent a powerful mechanism by which to communicate with
the community. They can assist with publicizing community concerns and
available solutions, such as services from government or community agencies
or new laws or codes that will be enforced. In addition, the media can have a
significant impact on public perceptions of the police, crime problems, and
fear of crime.
6.
Packet Pg.
5
4
Organizational
Transformation
The alignment of organizational management, structure, personnel, and
information systems to support community partnerships and proactive
problem solving
The community policing philosophy focuses on the way that departments
are organized and managed and how the infrastructure can be changed to
support the philosophical shift behind community policing. It encourages
the application of modern management practices to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Community policing emphasizes changes in organizational
structures to institutionalize its adoption and infuse it throughout the entire
department, including the way it is managed and organized, its personnel, and
its technology.
6.
Packet Pg.
6
5
Community Policing Defined
Agency Management
Under the community policing model, police management infuses community
policing ideals throughout the agency by making a number of critical changes
in climate and culture, leadership, formal labor relations, decentralized
decision making and accountability, strategic planning, policing and
procedures, organizational evaluations, and increased transparency.
Climate and culture
Changing the climate and culture means supporting a proactive
orientation that values systematic problem solving and partnerships.
Formal organizational changes should support the informal networks and
communication that take place within agencies to support this orientation.
Leadership
Leaders serve as role models for taking risks and building collaborative
relationships to implement community policing, and they use their position
to influence and educate others about it. Leaders, therefore, must constantly
emphasize and reinforce community policing’s vision, values, and mission
within their organization and support and articulate a commitment to
community policing as the predominant way of doing business.
Labor relations
If community policing is going to be effective, police unions and similar forms
of organized labor must be a part of the process and function as partners in
the adoption of the community policing philosophy. Including labor groups
in agency changes can ensure support for the changes that are imperative to
community policing implementation.
Decision making
Community policing calls for decentralization in both command structure
and decision making. Decentralized decision making allows frontline officers
to take responsibility for their role in community policing. When an officer
is able to create solutions to problems and take risks, he or she ultimately
feels accountable for those solutions and assumes a greater responsibility for
the well-being of the community. Decentralized decision making involves
flattening the hierarchy of the agency, increasing tolerance for risk taking in
6.
Packet Pg.
7
6
problem-solving efforts, and allowing officers discretion in handling calls. In
addition, providing sufficient authority to coordinate various resources to
attack a problem and allowing officers the autonomy to establish relationships
with the community will help define problems and develop possible solutions.
Strategic planning
The department should have a written statement reflecting a department-
wide commitment to community policing and a plan that matches operational
needs to available resources and expertise. If a strategic plan is to have value,
the members of the organization should be well-versed in it and be able
to give examples of their efforts that support the plan. Components such
as the organization’s mission and values statement should be simple and
communicated widely.
Policies
Community policing affects the nature and development of department
policies and procedures to ensure that community policing principles and
practices have an effect on activities on the street. Problem solving and
partnerships, therefore, should become institutionalized in policies, along with
corresponding sets of procedures, where appropriate.
Organizational evaluations
In addition to the typical measures of police performance (arrests,
response times, tickets issued, and crime rates), community policing calls
for broadening police outcome measures to include such things as greater
community satisfaction, less fear of crime, the alleviation of problems,
and improvement in quality of life. Community policing calls for a more
sophisticated approach to evaluation—one that looks at not only how
outcomes are measured but also how feedback information is used.
Transparency
Community policing involves decision-making processes that are more
open than traditional policing. If the community is to be a full partner, the
department needs mechanisms for readily sharing relevant information on
crime and social disorder problems and police operations with the community.
6.
Packet Pg.
8
7
Community Policing Defined
Organizational Structure
It is important that the organizational structure of the agency ensure that
local patrol officers have decision-making authority and are accountable
for their actions. This can be achieved through long-term assignments,
the development of officers who are generalists, and using special units
appropriately.
Geographic assignment of officers
With community policing, there is a shift to the long-term assignment of
officers to specific neighborhoods or areas. Geographic deployment plans can
help enhance customer service and facilitate more contact between police and
citizens, thus establishing a strong relationship and mutual accountability.
Beat boundaries should correspond to neighborhood boundaries, and other
government services should recognize these boundaries when coordinating
government public-service activities.
Despecialization
To achieve community policing goals, officers have to be able to handle
multiple responsibilities and take a team approach to collaborative problem
solving and partnering with the community. Community policing encourages
its adoption agency-wide, not just by special units, although there may be a
need for some specialist units that are tasked with identifying and solving
particularly complex problems or managing complex partnerships.
Resources and finances
Agencies have to devote the necessary human and financial resources to
support community policing to ensure that problem-solving efforts are robust
and that partnerships are sustained and effective.
Personnel
The principles of community policing need to be infused throughout the
entire personnel system of an agency, including recruitment, hiring, selection,
and retention of all law enforcement agency staff, from sworn officers to
civilians and volunteers. Personnel evaluations, supervision, and training must
also be aligned with the agencies’ community policing views.
6.
Packet Pg.
9
8
Recruitment, hiring, and selection
Agencies need a systematic means of incorporating community policing
elements into their recruitment, selection, and hiring processes. Job
descriptions should recognize community policing and problem-solving
responsibilities and encourage the recruitment of officers who have a “spirit of
service” instead of only a “spirit of adventure.” A community policing agency
also has to thoughtfully examine where it is seeking recruits, whom it is
recruiting and hiring, and what is being tested. Agencies are also encouraged
to seek community involvement in this process through the identification of
competencies and participation in review boards.
Personnel supervision/evaluations
Supervisors must tie performance evaluations to community policing
principles and activities that are incorporated into job descriptions.
Performance, reward, and promotional procedures should support sound
problem-solving activities, proactive policing, community collaboration, and
citizen satisfaction with police services.
Training
Training at all levels—academy, field, and in-service—must support
community policing principles and tactics. It also needs to encourage creative
thinking, a proactive orientation, communication and analytical skills, and
techniques for dealing with quality-of-life concerns and maintaining order.
Officers can be trained to identify and correct conditions that could lead to
crime, raise public awareness, and engage the community in finding solutions
to problems. Field training officers and supervisors need to learn how to
encourage problem solving and help officers learn from other problem-solving
initiatives. Until community policing is institutionalized in the organization,
training in its fundamental principles will need to take place regularly.
Information Systems (Technology)
Community policing is information-intensive, and technology plays a central
role in helping to provide ready access to quality information. Accurate and
timely information makes problem-solving efforts more effective and ensures
that officers are informed about the crime and community conditions of
6.
Packet Pg.
10
9
Community Policing Defined
their beat. In addition, technological enhancements can greatly assist with
improving two-way communication with citizens and in developing agency
accountability systems and performance outcome measures.
Communication / access to data
Technology provides agencies with an important forum by which to
communicate externally with the public and internally with their own staff.
To communicate with the public, community policing encourages agencies to
develop two-way communication systems through the Internet that allow for
online reports, reverse 911 and e-mail alerts, discussion forums, and feedback
on interactive applications (e.g., surveys or maps), thereby creating ongoing
dialogues and increasing transparency.
Technology encourages effective internal communication through
memoranda, reports, newsletters, e-mail and enhanced incident reporting,
dispatch functions, and communications interoperability with other entities
for more efficient operations. Community policing also encourages the use of
technology to develop accountability and performance measurement systems
that are timely and contain accurate metrics and a broad array of measures
and information.
Community policing encourages the use of technology to provide officers with
ready access to timely information on crime and community characteristics
within their beats, either through laptop computers in their patrol cars or
through personal data devices. In addition, technology can support crime/
problem analysis functions by enabling agencies to gather more detailed
information about offenders, victims, crime locations, and quality-of-life
concerns and to further enhance analysis.
Quality and accuracy of data
Information is only as good as its source; therefore, it is not useful if it is
of questionable quality and accuracy. Community policing encourages
agencies to put safeguards in place to ensure that information from various
sources is collected in a systematic fashion and entered into central systems
that are linked to one another and checked for accuracy so that it can be
used effectively for strategic planning, problem solving, and performance
measurement.
6.
Packet Pg.
11
Problem
Solving
The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic examination
of identified problems to develop and evaluate effective responses
Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic
and routine fashion. Rather than responding to crime only after it occurs,
community policing encourages agencies to proactively develop solutions to
the immediate underlying conditions contributing to public safety problems.
Problem solving must be infused into all police operations and guide decision-
making efforts. Agencies are encouraged to think innovatively about their
responses and view making arrests as only one of a wide array of potential
responses. A major conceptual vehicle for helping officers to think about
problem solving in a structured and disciplined way is the SARA (scanning,
analysis, response, and assessment) problem-solving model.
10
6.
Packet Pg.
12
11
Community Policing Defined
Scanning: Identifying and prioritizing problems
The objectives of scanning are to identify a basic problem, determine the
nature of that problem, determine the scope of seriousness of the problem,
and establish baseline measures. An inclusive list of stakeholders for the
selected problem is typically identified in this phase. A problem can be
thought of as two or more incidents similar in one or more ways and that is of
concern to the police and the community. Problems can be a type of behavior,
a place, a person or persons, a special event or time, or a combination of any
of these. The police, with input from the community, should identify and
prioritize concerns.
Analysis: Researching what is known about the problem
Analysis is the heart of the problem-solving process. The objectives of analysis
are to develop an understanding of the dynamics of the problem, develop an
understanding of the limits of current responses, establish correlation, and
develop an understanding of cause and effect. As part of the analysis phase,
it is important to find out as much as possible about each aspect of the crime
triangle by asking who, what, when, where, how, why, and why not about the
victim, offender, and crime location.
Response: Developing solutions to bring about lasting reductions
in the number and extent of problems
The response phase of the SARA model involves developing and
implementing strategies to address an identified problem by searching for
strategic responses that are both broad and uninhibited. The response should
follow logically from the knowledge learned during the analysis and should
be tailored to the specific problem. The goals of the response can range from
either totally eliminating the problem, substantially reducing the problem,
reducing the amount of harm caused by the problem, or improving the quality
of community cohesion.
Assessment: Evaluating the success of the responses
Assessment attempts to determine if the response strategies were successful
by understanding if the problem declined and if the response contributed
to the decline. This information not only assists the current effort but also
gathers data that build knowledge for the future. Strategies and programs can
6.
Packet Pg.
13
12
be assessed for process, outcomes, or both. If the responses implemented are
not effective, the information gathered during analysis should be reviewed.
New information may have to be collected before new solutions can be
developed and tested. The entire process should be viewed as circular rather
than linear, meaning that additional scanning, analysis, or responses may
be required.
Using the Crime Triangle to Focus on Immediate Conditions
(Victim/Offender/Location)
To understand a problem, many problem solvers have found it useful to
visualize links among the victim, offender, and location (the crime triangle)
and those factors that could have an impact on them: for example, capable
guardians for victims (e.g., security guards, teachers, and neighbors), handlers
for offenders (e.g., parents, friends, and probation officers), and managers for
locations (e.g., business merchants, park employees, and motel clerks). Rather
than focusing primarily on addressing the root causes of a problem, the police
focus on the factors that are within their reach, such as limiting criminal
opportunities and access to victims, increasing guardianship, and associating
risk with unwanted behavior.
John E. Eck, “Police Problems: The Complexity of Problem Theory, Research and Evaluation,”
in Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, ed. Johannes Knutsson, vol. 15
of Crime Prevention Studies (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2003), 79–114.
6.
Packet Pg.
14
About the COPS Office
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component of the
U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by
the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information
and grant resources.
Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community
policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates.
Earning the trust of the community and making those individuals stakeholders in their own
safety enables law enforcement to better understand and address both the needs of the
community and the factors that contribute to crime.
COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school
and campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource
Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant application
portal, providing access to online application forms.
6.
Packet Pg.
15
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
145 N Street NE
Washington, DC 20530
To obtain details on COPS Office programs,
call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.
Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
ISBN: 978-1-935676-06-5
e051229476
First published 2012
Revised 2014
6.
Packet Pg.
16
1
Community Policing in Fort Collins
Chief John Hutto and Lieutenant Jeremy Yonce
10-13-15
ATTACHMENT 2
6.2
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Community Policing in Fort Collins
City Council Work Session
October 13, 2015
Police Chief John Hutto
Lieutenant Jeremy Yonce
2
6.2
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Community Policing Defined
Community Policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational
strategies that support the strategic use of partnerships and problem-
solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that
give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear
of crime.
COPS
Community Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
3
6.2
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
COPS
Community Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
6.2
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Examples of community policing:
§ Department Philosophy
§ Specialized Units
Neighborhood Enforcement Team
District One
School Resource Officers
Bicycle Team
5
6.2
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Department Philosophy
Partnerships with DDA, DBA, CSU, other organizations
Engagement and communication with neighborhoods
Citizen police academy, youth police academy, explorers/volunteers
Community Involvement
Special Olympics (Polar Plunge, Tip a Cop)
Veterans’ Events (Honor Flight, Memorial Day service)
Santa Cops, Shop with a Cop
6
6.2
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Department Philosophy
Partnership with Colorado State University
Community Welcome
Party Partners
Party Registration
CSU/Police Collaboration Working Group
Colorado State University Police Department
Safe Ride Home
7
6.2
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Department Philosophy
• Reactive vs Proactive Policing
- Ensuring an appropriate amount of proactive (vs. call-driven) policing
time
• Problem solving efforts to address the root causes of police
incidents
- Using data and technology to determine areas of concern
8
6.2
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Neighborhood Enforcement Team
Impacting Crime and Improving the Quality of Life for Citizens
“NET exists to be a liaison between citizens and Police
Services, assisting in crime related nuisance abatement and
quality of life issues making your neighborhood a safer,
more enjoyable place to live and work.”
9
6.2
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Neighborhood Enforcement Team
KFCG funded unit (1 Sergeant and 7 officers)
Bicycle Thefts
Bike Registration
Targeted investigations on large-scale bicycle theft operations
Window Peepers
Call reduction in multi-family housing
10
6.2
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Apartment Complex Project Example
Problem Identification:
• Complaints from surrounding neighbors
regarding criminal activity
• Increasing patrol response to calls for service
• Bed bug, cockroach and mold infestations
• (Child Abuse charges filed)
• Trash, abandoned/disabled vehicles, structural
depreciation
11
6.2
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Apartment Complex Project Example
COP/POP Approach:
• Increased foot patrols
• Police officers getting to know tenants
• Partnerships with FCHA, Code Compliance, Building Inspector,
Larimer County Health Department, Colorado Legal
• Partnership with Management and Owner to enforce Crime Free
Leasing – Problem tenants evicted
• Routine inspection of units for extermination and mold
12
6.2
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Before After
Community Policing
6.2
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Apartment Complex Project Example
Results:
• 64% reduction in calls for service
• Improved aesthetics of the property
• Personal investment by owner,
management and tenants
• Free of bed bugs, cockroaches and
mold
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015
198 211
76
Calls For Service
6.2
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Apartment Complex Project Example
Results:
• Neighborhood events
• National Night Out
• Summer BBQ
• Police Friendly
15
6.2
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
NET Crime Prevention Specialist
16
• Neighborhood Watch
• Neighborhood Night Out
• CPTED
• SafeKids Coalition
• RESTORE
• Colorado Crime Prevention Association
• Crime Stoppers
• Colorado Organized Retail Crime Assoc.
• Neighborhood Task Force
• Drug Take Back events
• City of Fort Collins VORTEX Team
• Personal Safety Training
• Pedestrian Safety Training
• Difficult People Training
• Robbery Prevention Training
• Scams and Fraud Training
• Safety Fairs
• Crime Prevention Training
• Alarm tracking
• Safety Assessments and Surveys
6.2
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Neighborhood Enforcement Team
Campus West
KFCG officers for Campus West
Added two officers to NET to specifically address this area
Two officers to the weekend night shift
Reduced size of the patrol district to enable more focus (D3)
17
6.2
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
18
Noise & Party Call
Hot Spots
6.2
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
19
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015
969
913
226 256
Campus West Area
CALLS FOR SERVICE - NOISE/PARTY COMPLAINTS
NOISE AND NUISANCE CITATIONS
Noise = 158
Nuisance = 98
Noise = 219
Nuisance = 7
6.2
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
20
Offense Hot Spots
Burglary
Robbery
Theft
Vehicle Trespass
Property Trespass
Vehicle Theft
Criminal Mischief
6.2
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Neighborhood Enforcement Team
Avery Park Resident Comments
“FCPD utilized a different form of police enforcement and visibility to
combat disorderly conduct, noise, nuisance and alcohol violations over
the past few months.”
“I have been extremely pleased at the response to calls and the
proactive approach you have taken on the weekends to address so
many of our issues. I think it is paying off and will continue to build a
better environment for both home owners and renters to live in.”
21
6.2
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
District One
Downtown Area
Redefined district
Substation offering public access
Night time D1 Team (Sergeant and 7 officers)
“Downtown After Dark”
Relationships with establishments
Safe Ride
22
6.2
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
23
1 Traffic Stop *
2 Disturbance
3 Welfare Check
4 Assist
5 Subject Stop *
6 Suspicious Activity
7 Trespass
8 Municipal Violation *
9 Transient Complaint
10 Assist Other Agency
Top 10 Activity Types
18:00 – 06:00
* Officer Initiated Activity
46% 54%
Welfare Check
Officer Initiated Call For Service
47% 53%
Disturbance
Officer Initiated Call For Service
38%
62%
Assist
Officer Initiated
Call For Service
6.2
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
District One
Daytime D1
• Creation of new unit through KFCG and General Fund
• Sergeant, 2 daytime officers, 1 liquor officer, 1 marijuana officer
• Focusing on daytime issues and support for businesses
• 4 business owner/operator workshops (70 people attended)
• Partnerships with service providers: Street Outreach concept
24
6.2
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
25
0
50
100
150
200
250
TRANSIENT
COMPLAINT
WELFARE
CHECK
TRESPASS DISTURBANCE
D1 Area Incidents
06:00 – 18:00
2012 - 2013
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
6.2
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
School Resource Officers
• Team of 11 Officers and a Sergeant Serving:
• 38 Poudre School District schools
• 27,510 students
• 3,500 staff members
• 50/50 funding with PSD
• Handle an average of 620 calls for service per school year
• Theft, assault, weapons, drugs, sexual assault, criminal mischief,
trespass, disorder crimes, harassment, suicide threats, mental holds,
warrant arrests, child abuse, welfare checks, bomb threats, missing
persons, exploitation.
26
6.2
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
School Resource Officers
• Goals of the SRO Program:
• Provide a safe learning environment and help reduce school
violence
• Improve school and law enforcement collaboration
• Improve perceptions and relations between students, staff and
law enforcement officials
Note: In 80% of school attacks, a peer, friend, school mate, or sibling had information
about the attack before it took place.
27
6.2
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
• Partnerships:
• Poudre School District
• District Attorney’s Office
• Restorative Justice
• Probation
• Parole
• SB-94 Staff
28
• Department of Human Services
• Center for Family Outreach
• Juvenile Magistrate
• Mental Health Experts
• HUB
School Resource Officers
6.2
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Bicycle Unit
• Officers who receive additional training and bicycle certification
• Collateral duty
• Targeted deployment
• Special events
NET and District One officers are bike certified
29
6.2
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Future Direction of Community Policing
Geographic decentralization
Precincts, Substations, and Workstations
Campus West Substation-Envision a Partnership with Code
Enforcement, Occupancy enforcement, CSU services
Workstation at the mall
Northeast part of town….
30
6.2
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
Community Policing
Are there any questions about the community policing activities of
FCPS?
Would Council like to see an offer in the 2017-2018 budget for a
community policing substation with the associated staffing for the
Campus West area?
31
6.2
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3633 : Update on Community Policing)
new City
staff to
maintain
site for
safety and
cleanliness
Services
provided by
private
sector
750 tons/yr $87/ton
*Caveat: initial capital costs will range depending on conditions of new site (e.g., installing power, paving,
or traffic management issues are unknown potential costs)
Bundled Project 1.5: Increase education and seek partnerships to expand Zero Waste opportunities
General Description: Provide more information to citizens about ways to become engaged, and increase
collaborative efforts with local recycling companies to improve opportunities to divert waste. Additional
note: the outcome of this project is not “embedded” in CRC models
1. Promote free concrete
/asphalt recycling available at
Hoffman Mill Road Crushing
facility. 2. Promote more
backyard composting. 3.
Regional planning for County
Landfill; focus on organics,
compost. Create Recycling &
Reuse Economic
Development Cluster.
$50,000 to
75,000/yr*
(printing,
advertising, etc.)
$22,500/yr City
staff
50 FTE new
City staff
250 tons/yr (estimate
only)
$390/ton
(estimate
only)
*Caveat: Costs are variable depending on extent of outreach and education goals desired.
Summary of Benefits
In addition to providing citizens with a level of new recycling services, a long-standing request often heard from
residents, new projects and initiatives that are described here will keep Fort Collins moving forward in its quest to
achieve zero waste and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5
Packet Pg. 290
aggregated, then loaded for
optimal freight, delivery to
end users. Business model:
Operated by private sector;
vendor provides collection
bins, City helps publicize,
also builds/owns glass
bunker.
Operated by
private sector* in
partnership with
City; vendor
provides
collection bins,
City provides
support, also
builds/owns
glass bunker.
City’s Cost*
$20,000
capital
(one-time
costs for
one bunker)
$5,000/yr
O&M
300 tons/yr glass
recycled separately
$19/ton
* City is already starting to work with a start-up glass recycler to initiate a pilot collection route in Fort
Collins; ongoing costs predicated on company’s business plan (i.e., uncertainty exists).
Bundled Project 1.3: Additional household hazardous waste (HHW) collection events General
Description: Expand City program from 2 collection events to 4 collection events per year. Additional
note: the outcome of this project is 50-75% “embedded” in CRC model
5
Packet Pg. 289
vendor
employees
on site
1,092 tons/yr waste
diverted from landfills
Year 5 = 1,229 tons
$194/ton
CRC “lite” Version 2 - Open two days per week
1. For-fee area open two
days/week 2. Excludes
green-waste/wood from list of
hard-to-recycle materials 3.
“Rivendell” area open seven
days/week during daylight
hours
$1.7 M capital
$62-82,000/yr
O&M
No new City
staff 2
vendor
employees
on site
954 tons/yr waste
diverted Year 5 =
1,074 tons
$124/ton
* Calculations do not include 1,500 tons/year recyclables from existing (“Rivendell”) site ** 30-year
amortization implies site continues to be in use “as is” for 30 years with no new capital costs.
5
Packet Pg. 288
• Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor posts
• Videos from public
meetings
Broadcast Outreach
• Project email list
• 500+ subscribed
• Newsletters
• Postcards handed out
• Flyers posted in
community
• Press releases
• News articles
• Utility bill mailer (City
News)
•fcgov.com
ATTACHMENT 6
4.6
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
established)
(~2019 – 2020)
Landfill ban on all curbside recyclables
Landfill ban on all organics (food scraps,
food soiled paper and yard trimmings)
Every other week trash collection
Landfill ban on all curbside
recyclables
Landfill ban on all curbside
recyclables
Landfill ban on all organics
ATTACHMENT 3
4.3
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Community Recycling Ordinance Recommended Implementation Timeline (3623 :
3.5% diversion
rate increase
Reduces
55,000 tons
CO2
equivalent
Additional
33% to 50% cost /
customer
(for those not already
recycling)
Would include process to
opt-out if location can’t
recycle.
2b: Multi-family /
commercial requiring
recycling service
(alternative option)
2,300 tons
0.6% diversion
rate increase
Reduces
8,300 tons
CO2
equivalent
Additional
5-30% cost / customer
($20-$30/customer)
(for those not already
recycling)
Minimal recycling level
subscription has occurred
elsewhere; could result in
nominal impact. Would
include process to opt-out if
location can’t recycle.
3: Require haulers to
provide optional yard
trimmings collection
from all single-family
homes
400 tons
0.1% diversion
rate increase
minor $13-15 / subscriber
(optional)
First step to providing all
organics service. Allows
customers who are ready to
start composting yard
trimmings to participate
sooner.
4: Collect all-organics
from all single-family
homes (bundled)
23,700 tons
5.4% diversion
rate increase
Reduces
14,800 tons
CO2
equivalent
$8 / household Includes yard trimmings,
food scraps, paper towels
etc. would be year-round.
Bundled with trash service.
5: Require food scraps
subscription from
grocers & large
restaurants
25,000 tons
6% diversion
rate increase
Reduces
29,900 tons
CO2
equivalent
Variable Costs for service will
decrease with more
customer density for
haulers.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.1
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Comparison and Analysis of Options for Community Recycling Ordinance (3623 : Community Recycling Ordinance)
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Many of these overlap with several of the Areas of Opportunity or warranted some additional
explanation, and thus are discussed in greater detail below.
Rate Structures: Prices send a value signal to customers and help customers determine how
they value using water. Rate structures are also designed to cover the cost of providing
service.31 Therefore it is important to balance both sides. Along with the Finance team, we
intend to explore new means of incentivizing the efficient use of water while supporting
revenue requirements.
New and Re-Development Incentives & Requirements: There are a variety of decisions made
throughout the development and re-development process. We aim to further explore and
support ordinances or regulations like low water use landscape requirements, tap fees and
incentive programs that are more aligned to encouraged efficiency from the start, irrigation
taps/requirements, greywater ordinances and systems, and more.
31 This includes operational costs (like treatment costs), maintenance costs, and capital costs.
3.4
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
30MG. The cost-
effectiveness of this
program is about $1.20
per 1,000 gallons saved.
Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 1.3, 1.11, 3.7, 4.7, 4.8
Benefits
• Increased efficiency of
development
• New development will lead
by example
• Less waste from pursuing
retrofits of new
development
• Reduced impact of
population growth
Example Activities
• Landscape requirements and
incentives for new
development
• Contractor education and
trainings
• New and re-development
plan review requirements
• Require WaterSense
appliances and fixtures
Example: Beginning in
2012, the City’s Green
Building Code mandates
WaterSense toilets and
other fixtures in
residential and
commercial facilities;
this is estimated to save
between 20-25%
annually.
3.4
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Water Efficiency Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
saving upgrades ($ based on savings) 0.15 $15,000 $1,000 25 $25,000 $40,000 2,500,000 7.7 $5,213 3
Water Conservation Plan 36 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
drought periods. Either water conservation or storage by itself, while beneficial, would not
provide the same level of flexibility and drought resilience.
Water Conservation Plan 27 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Outside City Customers 260,401 216,004 199,958 199,470 221,041 211,186
Indoor vs. Outdoor Water Use
Precipitation levels and daily temperatures during the watering season cause water use to vary
considerably from year to year. For Fort Collins, the chart below shows the percentage of water
used indoors versus outdoors per year. Indoor water use remains fairly consistent while outdoor
water use fluctuates. Close to 40 percent of the annual water use is for outdoor watering between
April and October.
Water Conservation Plan 16 Fort Collins Utilities
3.3
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: 2010 Water Conservation Plan (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
Kelly Scholl Kellow, Horticulturist
Seasonal Staff
Wendy Anderson
Nadia Iranpour
Kyle Schroeder
Dylan Smith
Terra Smith
Andrew Vogel
3.1
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: 2014 Water Conservation Annual Report (3634 : Water Efficiency Plan)
structure.
Install water measurement devices
on key structures to administer
instream flow.
Develop key partnerships that lead
to ecologically valuable river flow
through the urban reach.
Financial resources to design and
construct structural modifications
to key diversion structures.
Incentives - to develop a variety of
water sharing agreements
Legal support to develop and
implement agreements to insure no
injury to water rights.
Data to develop a minimum
instream flow has been collected by
CPW, NAO, and CWCB. The
Flows Committee of the Poudre
Runs Through It is working on
several water delivery mechanisms.
Local Agriculture:
Local agriculture depends on
water owned by the City and
rented back to the agriculture
community.
In most years, the City has
surplus water that can be rented
to the agriculture industry.
The Water Utility owns shares
in ditch companies that are still
highly productive for
agriculture - such as the North
Poudre Irrigation Company
(NPIC) and the Water Supply
and Storage Company
(WSSC).
Annual costs of ditch share
ownership by Utilities are
offset by renting surplus water
to agriculture.
In drought years, the City
may not have surplus water
available for rental by the
agriculture industry.
Consequently, the water
supply for local farms is
interrupted, negatively
impacting the industry.
Water sharing arrangements with
farmers are being explored to provide
additional supplies for the Utilities
during severe droughts
Agriculture can help create separator
zones between Fort Collins and other
cities.
Local agriculture provides locally
produced food for Fort Collins
residents (e.g., farmers markets).
Municipalities and water districts are
continuing to buy shares in ditch
companies to provide water for projected
growth, resulting in Jess water under the
control of farmers and decreasing
farmlands.
The highly productive ditch companies
(e.g., NPIC and WSSC) must maintain
their water
supply systems to deliver water to farms,
which also maintains the yield of the water
rights that can be used through the City's
ownership. These use and maintenance
actions often
involve things that may conflict with City
values, such as the reduction of flows in
the Poudre
River and removal of trees.
A balance between agriculture and
municipalities is maintained.
An understanding by City leaders
and citizens of the operation and
maintenance needs of the ditch
companies that provide some of the
City's supplies and support local
agriculture.
Better communication around the
operations, maintenance and needs
of local agriculture.
Stormwater Drainage:
Ditches could be utilized to
convey stormwater runoff and
mitigate flooding.
Certain larger irrigation canals,
when not being used for water
supply, can provide stormwater
runoff capacity in storm events
that reduces the potential for
flooding along waterways.
Stormwater conveyance and
water supply are different
and distinct efforts.
Storm runoff can result in
substantially higher peak
discharges than the flow for
which a ditch was designed.
When ditches are being used
for their primary purpose of
water supply, there is very
Acquisition of ditches would give the
City more control over their use,
maintenance and appearance and
responses to citizens regarding
complaints and issues.
Increased communications with
irrigation companies would develop
improved understanding of concerns
which in turn should improve
coordination of activities and complaint
resolution.
Capacity and conveyance in irrigation
canals varies along their length.
Stormwater runoff from large storm events
could result in spills at numerous locations
along canals which could result in flooding
of private and public property.
The City would have increased liabilities
(i.e. legal, maintenance standpoint,
flooding spills).
Contributing additional storm water could
Establish a system where increased
accountability and consideration of
City, citizen and community
concerns is provided.
Develop partnerships and
agreements with each of the ditch
companies address issues of mutual
concern.
Funding
Staff time
2.5
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Determine liability issues.
Money to pay for City's portion of
tree work
Time for research of property
ownership
Staff time to draw up agreements.
Risk and Liability Issues:
The City may be liable for
hazards created by ditches.
Risks and liabilities are closely
tied to the City's role(s): a
shareholder, a Board member,
owner of water rights or other
interests, owner of land, as a
governmental authority.
Risks must be analyzed on a
case/case basis.
The City has the opportunity to actively
and proactively identify, analyze, and
manage such risks and liabilities.
If the City fails to properly identify,
analyze, and manage such risks and
liabilities, significant financial risk
or harm, or harm to water resources could
result.
T City engages in the proper
analysis of such risks and liabilities
in order to make informed
decisions managing the costs of
achieving identified outcomes and
objectives.
When a specific issue with a
specific ditch arises,
additional information with be
needed, as well as time and
resources, in order to engage in the
proper
analysis or such risks and
liabilities.
Ditches and the Land Use Code:
Ditches and their associated
activities are exempt from
Land Use Code requirements.
The Land Use Code does
recognize the value of ditches
that serve as wildlife corridors
by requiring a 50 foot setback
from the top of bank of the
ditch to buffer the ecological
function provided by the ditch
from the development.
Ditches and their associated
activities, as a historically
agricultural land use, are
exempt from Land Use
Code requirements.
Buffers could be expanded to include
irrigation ditches not acting as wildlife
corridors (but consider a smaller buffer,
e.g., 25')
Have ditches at least remain open (day
lighted) instead of being
undergrounded (see NIC Policy
LU6).
Loss of connectivity that ditches provide
No legal authority in the Land Use Code to
enforce the opportunities listed above
Would require$ to finance/incentivize
achieving these values/results, e.g.,
acquiring easements (whether time bound,
e.g., 5-20 years, or permanent)
Attempts to consolidate ditches, e.g., via
diversions may have competing values
Water delivered by the ditches creates
significant ecological benefits. If we lose
ditches, we lose these values
Ditches recognized for the multiple
values they serve
Ditches provide connectivity, not
only for wildlife but also for people
(where appropriate)
Public engagement- where are the
priority ditches, where can ditches
fill the gap, etc.
For ditch companies and property
owners if we incentivize this -what
would be most appealing?
Time
Ditches and Nature in the City:
Ditches serve as an informal
connection point throughout the
City, offering opportunities for
access for people and habitat for
wildlife.
One of the most important
issues to arise from Nature in
the City is connectivity, both
for people and for wildlife.
Ditches provide model
connectivity for mammals,
"herps" (amphibians, reptiles,
etc.) and other species that
need connected corridors (as
opposed to birds and butterflies
which can navigate barriers
Legal precedents limit
opportunities to require
ditch companies to provide
connectivity.
Vegetation management within the
ditch (timing, specific practices such as
dispersal of nonnative plants, etc.) can
improve to support nature in the City.
Identification of ditches in the City that
have the highest wildlife values and
potential access – prioritize efforts
there
Need to also understand how ditches are
meeting the life history needs for some of
these species.
Vanishing ditches and conversion of water
rights take water out of ditches. Without
water, corridors are less valuable.
Ditches recognized for the multiple
values they serve and prioritized
based on value
Ditches provide connectivity, not
only for people but also for people
(where appropriate)
Ecosystem services valuation study
(Citywide) that shows the ROI
(return on investment) for investing
in the ditch system.
Financial resources to conduct the
mapping and analyses
Incentives -to encourage
understanding, best practices, etc.
A person (and an advisory team) to
coordinate these efforts, e.g.,
wildlife management on private
lands.
2.5
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
use by Utilities customers.
The decrees specifically
describe flowrates for the water
remaining in the ditch and for
the water to be used by the
Utilities on a per share basis
making operations easily
understood and legally
protected.
Raw (untreated) water
deliveries through irrigation
ditches provide low cost water
for the City's parks, golf
courses, schools and HOAs.
Utilities works cooperatively with the
ditch companies within the Poudre
basin to trade water and use company
facilities to assist in providing a reliable
supply of water for the Utilities
customers.
Agreements with the Water Supply and
Storage Company provide cooling
water for Platte River Power
Associations Rawhide Energy Station.
Utilities plans on dry year yields such
that surplus water is available for use
by local irrigators in many years,
providing City revenue that helps offset
assessment costs of ditch share
ownership and supporting local
agriculture.
Other entities are purchasing ditch shares
with the intent of removing the water from
the ditches.
Adequate protections need to be
incorporated in the change-of-use decrees
to protect the City's interests in the ditch
companies.
Maintaining good relationships
with the ditch companies' boards
and shareholders.
Communicating with ditch
superintendents to appropriately
account for water supplies within
the ditch.
Continued communications with
ditch companies about the City's
raw and treated water supply needs.
Continued attention toward
conversion of local ditch company
shares by others.
Water Quality:
Ditch company operations can
cause water quality impacts and
impair beneficial uses of local
water bodies.
City stormwater permit
provides the authority to
regulate discharges of
pollutants into local waterways,
including irrigation ditches.
Significant share ownership
and board representation gives
the City influence over how
ditch companies may address
water quality issues.
Ditch companies have
historically focused on
water delivery and not
ancillary issues such as
water quality. This culture
of ditch companies and
ditch boards is difficult to
influence.
The EPA's "Waters of the US"
rulemaking could expand the definition
of waters of the U.S. to include ditches.
The City may be able to offer financial
resources to ditches to protect and
maintain water quality,
The City may use political and cultural
capital to influence ditch companies
and their boards to expand the focus of
their operations to consider ancillary
benefits such as water quality.
Water law generally requires that water
rights cannot be injured to address water
quality.
This makes it difficult to enforce water
quality requirements on ditches.
Impairing agriculture use in favor of water
quality could be politically unpopular.
Impaired water quality in ditches can
impair water quality in local waterbodies,
causing negative impacts to beneficial uses
such as recreation and aquatic life.
The City is able to collaborate with
ditch companies to protect water
quality.
Ditch companies and their
shareholders recognize ditches as a
community asset and are willing to
invest in protecting water quality.
Potential financial resources that
we may utilize to cost share or
provide in-kind support for water
quality protection and
improvements with ditch
companies.
Mosquito Issues:
Stagnant/slow flow water in
ditches becomes breeding habitat
for mosquitoes.
Share ownership and Board
representation provide an
opportunity to communicate
with ditch companies regarding
management to reduce
mosquito breeding habitat.
Breeding habitats can be reduced with
small changes to ditch operations and
larvacide applications
Inspections and application of mosquito
larvacide can be timed more closely to
improve effectiveness
Unexpected water running in ditches, i.e.
rainfall, calls for water, emergency
responses.
Access issues.
Solid communication between the
ditch rider and the mosquito control
contractor.
Reduction of breeding sites in
irrigation ditches.
Contact information for both ditch
rider and mosquito control
contractor.
Recreational Uses of Ditch There are miles of ditches Ditch companies typically Public use of ditch company assets creates Funding
ATTACHMENT 5
2.5
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
Arthur Irrig. Co.
Arthur Lateral
Box Elder Ditch Co.
Boxelder Ditch
Box Elder Ditch Co.
Cache La Poudre Inlet Ditch
Little Cache La Poudre Irrig.
Coy Ditch
Coy Ditch Co.
Dixon Lateral
Warren Lake Reservoir Co.
!!!
Dixon Reservoir Ditches
Dixon Canyon Reservoir Co.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
North Poudre Irrig. Co.
Jackson Ditch
Jackson Ditch Co.
Lake Canal
Lake Canal Reservoir Co.
Larimer County Canal
Water Supply and Storage Co.
Larimer County Canal No. 2
Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrig. Co.
Larimer and Weld Canal
Larimer and Weld Irrig. Co.
Little Cache La Poudre Ditch
Little Cache La Poudre Irrig. Ditch Co.
Mail Creek Ditch
New Mercer Ditch Co.
New Mercer Ditch
New Mercer Ditch Co.
North Louden Ditch
North Louden Ditch Co.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Co.
Sand Dyke Ditch
Lake Canal Reservoir Co.
Sherwood Lateral
Sherwood Irrig. Co.
Taylor and Gill Ditch
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co.
Trilby Lateral
Trilby Lateral Co.
North Poudre Irrig. Co. Ditches
05 2.5
Miles
Note: This list includes City owned ditch companies and major ditches/laterals
that are within the City of Fort Colins. It is not comprehensive and may not include
all ditches, laterals, or other conveyance structures. Updated: 9/29/2015
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Local Irrigation Canals Map (3629 : Ditch and Reservoir Companies)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
INTERSTATE 25
S SHIELDS ST
S COLLEGE AVE
S TAFT HILL RD
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
LAPORTE AVE
E PROSPECT RD
S LEMAY AVE
E DOUGLAS RD
W DRAKE RD
STATE HIGHWAY 392
N OVERLAND TRL
E MULBERRY ST
E DRAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 5
COUNTY ROAD 54G
N US HIGHWAY 287
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
W PROSPECT RD
S OVERLAND TRL
E COUNTY ROAD 30
ZIEGLER RD
W TRILBY RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
N COUNTY ROAD 23
W COUNTY ROAD 38E
CARPENTER RD
S COUNTY ROAD 23
E LINCOLN AVE
N TAFT HILL RD
E COUNTY ROAD 38
W HORSETOOTH RD
TURNBERRY RD
W ELIZABETH ST
N LEMAY AVE
TERRY LAKE RD
S COUNTY ROAD 19
N COUNTY ROAD 5
S CENTENNIAL DR
GREGORY RD
GIDDINGS RD
W LAUREL ST
KECHTER RD
S US HIGHWAY 287
E COUNTY ROAD 54
E COUNTY ROAD 52
/
Fort Collins Area Water Districts
012345 0.5
Miles
Water Districts
East Larimer County Water District
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Fort Collins Utilities (Water)
Sunset Water District
West Fort Collins Water District
!!City Limits
GMA
Major Streets
Railroads
Figure Updated: 9/23/2015
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Fort Collins Area Water Districts (3632 : Water Development Fees)